sorted by:
new
hottopinsightfulfun

GC: Is attraction to "trans men", "trans women", etc separate from sexualities? Or is it not separate? And what are the arguments against "trans women are biologically female", "trans men are biologically male", "trans women are less of a man/male", and "trans men are less of a woman/female"?

by CuteAsDuck to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You say we can AT LEAST accept them as men and women, but that itself has caused the current issues we are in?

No, it didn't and you know this well.

You're right, actually. Lazy summer denies casualty, and the effect going along with "preferred pronouns" has had on where we are right now.

Calling a man a woman, and a woman a man is the first step one takes towards denying the reality of sex itself. The irony is lazy summer knows humans are mere bags of meat, which follows there is nothing special about humans, consciousness is a product of the brain, there is no "soul", etc, but they throw that logic out the window when it comes to the "trans" issue. They all of a sudden believe people can be born in wrong bodies, that a man can be born in a woman's body or a woman can be born in a man's body: https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8rw

Screenshot in case their comments get deleted or edited: https://imgur.com/4cPwv0b

Maybe that's the source of your problem, champ. I don't believe they're lying at all. I think it is possible for someone to be born in body of wrong sex.

We say no such things for other conditions. Consider an anorexic, who feels they are fat eventhough they aren't, and hates their body. No therapist would claim the anorexic is "a fat individual born in an average/thin body", "an average/thin individual with a brain that is structured like the brain of fat people", etc.

Nor would they treat anorexia by telling them to go on a diet or undergo surgery to remove more fat, even if the anorexia is an extreme case.

But they do and say such things for "gender dysphoria", which is as much of a "mental illness"/"disorder" as anorexia is. Why? Because they do not care about "gender dysphoric" people. They do not want to treat them. They want to push their sexist agenda, and hide behind fake kindness such as "respect their identity!" to do so.

Another issue is, lazy summer does not provide any proof that a woman can be born in the body of a man, or a man can be born in the body of a woman (there is no such proof). The only way that could be possible would be if the "soul" of a man went into the body of a woman, or the "soul" of a woman went into the body of a man, and for that lazy summer needs to prove there is a "soul" in the first place, and the "soul" can be sexed, which contradict their previous statements that humans are nothing special/nothing but bags of meat.

If they refer to "male" and "female" brains, then it is impossible for a female brain to exist within the body of a man, or for a male brain to exist within the body of a woman. Every single cell of a "trans woman"'s brain is male, which means the brain is male, and every single cell of a "trans man"'s brain is female, which means the brain is female. It makes no sense for every part of a man or a woman to be male or female respectively, except their brain. Even if studies find that the brains of "trans men" are similar in structure to the brains of men, and the brains of "trans women" are similar in structure to the brains of women, that does not mean "trans men" have male brains, or trans women have female brains, the same way eventhough men are biologically taller than women on average, a woman that is taller than most men is not "a male born in a female body", or "a female with a male height".

The conversation with lazy summer has proven to be thoroughly unproductive and a waste of time and energy, so I'm not bothering with them anymore. However, I did want to share I am in agreement with you. Lazy summer is a pseudo-intellectual, not experienced in the use of logic, so the only way they get people to entertain their false ideas is through appeal to emotion fallacies (e.g. "it's disrespectful to call a man a man!"), and pulling on their heartstrings instead of providing facts to back any of their claims.

Is there a way to change usernames on saidit?

by CuteAsDuck to /s/help from self.help

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

My "bucket" is very comfortable. Super enjoying it even if you didn't tell me to.

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What's worse, this "supergay" individual thinks people can be born in wrong bodies, and wants us to "prove" they are wrong: https://saidit.net/s/LGBDropTheT/comments/7sjh/agb_user_goes_on_a_date_with_a_trans_man_but/t8rw

I took screenshots in case their comments get deleted or edited: https://imgur.com/4cPwv0b

Maybe that's the source of your problem, champ. I don't believe they're lying at all. I think it is possible for someone to be born in body of wrong sex.

That's not realistically possible.

That's a bold claim. Prove it, please. I can't wait to see your mind penetrating machine.

Which is exactly what religious people do. Asking non-believers to prove believers are "wrong", instead of believers proving their claims first.

I am screaming internally.

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Sigh, https://imgur.com/vND88UE

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, how brave, gossiping behind my back without summoning my username...

Forgive me your lazy majesty, for I have completely forgotten to call upon your name and summon you. You're just that forgettable ...

I have no interest in being a part of your echo chamber where "trans = bad"

That's good. I don't want pro-"trans" people in my space anyway (:

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 18 insightful - 2 fun18 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Great, so that's history. Let's make sure to never repeat that.

"Gender" is oppressive, so history will repeat itself once you define man and woman based on "gender".

Oh please, don't pull a hurt feminist card on me now, like some woke leftie "literally shaking" that cries on Twitter. You're just as much a bag of meat as I am.

Just because I want women's voices to be heard, it's "feminism" and "feminism is bad uwu". Interesting take.

Maybe that's the source of your problem, champ. I don't believe they're lying at all. I think it is possible for someone to be born in body of wrong sex.

That's not realistically possible. For someone who knows humans are "mere bags of meat", you sound religious. Stop asking people to call a woman a man or a man a woman because you believe that "a woman can be born in a man's body" and "a man can be born in a woman's body". You're shoving your religious nonsense down other people's throat.

I don't care about your backlash. "Reality doesn't care about your feelings" works both ways, champ.

Claiming that a woman can be born in a "man's body" and a man can be born in a "woman's body", or that as long as a woman or a man "passes" as a man or a woman respectively, then they should be treated as a man or a woman, is not realistic, "champ". So "reality doesn't care about feelings" is on my side, not yours, and doesn't go both ways. Your "stance" relies on mere feelings. Which facts don't care about.

No. The acceptance of LGB declined because of the trans rights activists. You're bold to assume 0.3% of population could be this active on the internet.

The trans right activists did not pop out of nowhere. They took the beliefs of the 0.3% of the population and have been vocal about them.

In any case, most people refuse to accept a woman as a man or a man as a woman, which the 0.3% of the population want, hence the decline in acceptance of LGB people.

I always do, champ... It's my curse.

You have not grown up mentally.

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 20 insightful - 3 fun20 insightful - 2 fun21 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

but abstract concepts established by humans

"Gender" has been used to oppress women and gay people throughout human history. It is in fact a human construct, which shouldn't have existed in the first place. The only reason it came to exist unfortunately is misogyny and homophobia. Men who were attracted to men were seen as a "third gender", neither man nor woman, or somewhere in between, in multiple cultures (they might still be viewed that way in present cultures). Women were seen as inferior beings who were told to play with dolls, wear dresses, stay submissive, etc, and if they refused they would be seen as "not real women", or "not women". You're separating man and woman from their sex-based definitions, and reducing them to behaviour, clothes, artificial appearances, and feelings. You have admitted the "trans" movement (or more specifically, the "gender identity" movement) is nothing but a regressive movement that reinforces "gender" roles, and sexism. Reinforcing "gender" which is oppressive. There is no way this movement along with those who support it get any "respect" from me.

No. Realistically saying, you're romanticizing the idea of humanity. In reality, we're just bags of meat controlling a skeleton covered in flesh, which can die by slipping on something on a random trip to toilet.

We're not talking about some incredibly powerful foreign force that wants to redefine what you understand as your female or male view of the world. We're talking about 0.3% of population who feel like they were born in body of wrong sex and want to live a difficult life of pretending that isn't the case.

Realistically speaking, that 0.3% of the population is a bunch of bags of meat controlling a skeleton covered in flesh as well. But you care about one group of bags of meat more than you do about other groups of bags of meat. Sounds like a nihilist that refuses to accept their double standard and only uses nihilism in the form of "you're nothing but a bag of meat" when it's convenient for them. Or perhaps, you are not a nihilist at all. You may be someone using nihilism without knowing what it really is about to your own advantage in this discourse. Either way, cowardly move you did there.

Either care about the voices of us women (or as you call, bags of meat) that tell you not to reduce womanhood and manhood to artificial appearances, clothes, etc. Or get out of here with your "bag of meat" nonsense.

I don't demand anything. I merely ask, as I think it's a decent thing to do, in realistic situation when someone actually pass as the other sex. If some attention starved teenage girl says on her bio on Twitter that she's a boy now, but makes no effort to look like one and she cries how the world is transphobic to her, that's delusional and childish. But if someone makes an effort and looks like a woman, to get out of your way and call them a "man" just because you happen to know their biolgocial sex is an asshole move.

It is an "assholish" move to ask people to lie to themselves and others. When you ask someone to call a woman a man or a man a woman just because they "pass as a man/woman", have "crossdressed", undergone surgery, etc, you are asking them to lie. Not only to themselves, but to others, including the people who think they are "trans" or some "gender identity".

Lying is immoral in my view. So expect backlash when you're asking for such a thing.

I would also like to add, there is no such a thing as "being born in the wrong sex". I am not religious, and so "born in the wrong body/sex" makes no sense without a "soul" being inserted somewhere. You are your body. Everyone is. At no point did someone wake up and see themselves being thrown in a "wrong" body. They might not like the body they have, just like someone with anorexia does not like their body and weight. But we don't treat anorexia by telling the anorexics they are fat and should go on a diet, or that they are "in the wrong body", "assigned average x weight at birth" and should get surgery. We don't treat anorexia by accepting anorexics as "fat" and "ugly" that they believe they are. Lying to them that they are fat as they feel they are would be the "assholish" move.

Similarly, we should not treat men who believe they are women, and women who believe they are men, by giving them hormones, and surgery, or accepting them as the opposite sex with or without them "passing as" the opposite sex. That's the "assholish" move that nobody does with any other "mental illness".

But silencing people with censorship (something they do) is no way to acheive this, just like misgendering them (something you do) is not.

You want to shame and censor people for "misgendering" someone. But then claim censoring is not the way to go about this. So much contradiction in one sentence. I wonder how you get through the day like this.

I want to secure the future of LGB movement

Ah, the hero complex. Please don't bother securing our future, you're not a good role model.

Seeing your rhetoric, I can't objectively deny the reality that you're not being hateful.

You're asking people to deny the reality that sex can not change, that there is no such thing as "gender identity" and that no matter how much effort someone puts into trying to look like one sex, they will never be that sex and should not be treated as that sex. Do not refer to objective reality when you want people to deny it in the first place because "uwu, transphobia!", "uwu, hate!!".

It is and better consider if you want to have a LGB community or not, because the majority will never support us if you act like this. Grow up.

You are not in reality. The acceptance of LGB has declined, because of the T. The majority of people refuse to accept a man in dress as a woman or a woman with cut breasts a man.

How about you grow up and accept reality for what it is.

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 32 insightful - 3 fun32 insightful - 2 fun33 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I won't let them take away my rights over it, but I don't want to take their rights either. Compromise is the key.

Womanhood and manhood are not rights one can be given or taken from. One is either a man or a woman. No amount of compromise, surgery, crossdressing, and hormones will change that. By calling a man a woman, or a woman a man, you reduce womanhood and manhood to feelings, clothes, and artificial appearances gained from surgery. Excuse you, but a woman is not a dress, wig, etc. It's not a legal document. It's not me feeling today I'm a woman. Stop with this sexism.

I merely say that we can do as much as to accept them as women and men in everyday life.

And that's how we got to this mess. You demand people call a man a woman, and a woman a man. How would you stop a man who believes he is a woman from getting in and invading the spaces of women?

"Miss, ma'am, I accept you are a woman, but you can't use women's bathrooms, sports and changing rooms"? That's all you can tell them, and they will simply call you a "transphobe" over it and demand to be treated as women, the same way you accept them as women. You respect the T more than you do women and gay people though, as tras do, so color me surprised.

I will never ask anyone to bend to their toxic ideas; I just ask to call them men and women, accordingly

If you really don't want to ask people to bend to their toxic ideas, then stop asking people to call a man a woman, and a woman a man. That would be a good start.

I'm willingly taking fire from both sides over my current position, trust me, I'm pretty conscious.

You're not conscious enough apparently.

but I'm tired of pretending that I don't see actual transphobia

You are still too woke that your brain fell out. Calling a man a man, and a woman a woman is not "transphobia".

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

True, lazy-summer-god is like that. They use he for females, and she for males because "they pass uwu". Not only are they sexist, they are a pushover too. More vocal trans right activists really like these types of pro-tra individuals that act like they are "not tras" or "not like the other tras". They use them as a tool, because they are that easy.

AGB user goes on a date with a trans man, but learns the hard way that progressiveness has little to do with reality by lazy-summer-god in LGBDropTheT

[–]CuteAsDuck 41 insightful - 4 fun41 insightful - 3 fun42 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

??? Just because many females "pass as males", doesn't make them male, and just because many males "pass as females", doesn't make them female. It's sexist of you to define male and female by outward appearance, e.g. clothes, make up and surgery.

It might not cost you much, but it costs the rest of us a lot when you call a female he or a male she. The females will demand gay men date them because they are "he"s, the males will demand lesbians suck their "feminine girly dicks" because they are "she"s too. "We pass as the opposite sex, and you even call us by our preferred pronouns. Stop being a transphobe and include us in the spaces of the opposite sex too!".

People such as yourself going along with their preferred pronouns are why we are at this stage. You're no different than those TRAs you despise for limiting your rights and freedoms. You play by their rules. You play in their game. Wake up.

How can races/ethnicities be pure when all genes are mixed and environments constantly change?

by CuteAsDuck to /s/debatealtright from self.debatealtright

What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

It's alright. People ask similar questions sometimes. It's fair you were cautious, and I thought you deserve to know how I ended up here in the first place.

What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

The article is interesting to me. It's been difficult to find unbiased articles like this, written by actual scientists, so I appreciate you sharing it with me!

What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

[–]CuteAsDuck 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for your explanation! I didn't know of this history, so I was really confused when someone came out of nowhere to accuse me of being "salos/blork3d". At least now I'm not confused!

What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

I found this sub because I posted a question about race vs sex in GCdebatesQT. Someone told me this place is more appropriate: https://saidit.net/s/GCdebatesQT/comments/7md5/gc_if_race_and_ethnicity_are_social_constructs/snuz

https://imgur.com/Z132Dng

Just because my writing style happens to be similar to someone else, doesn't mean I am them.

What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

I think you're making too many assumptions. I'm 1) a woman, 2) not sure where you got salos/blork3d from. I've only posted in this sub for about 3 times now and it's only been about race because I still get confused on the matter when everywhere I go I see "race is a social construct", "race means nothing", etc, etc.

What are your arguments against "race is a social construct because the category of race does not correspond to biologically meaningful groups/entities" and "skin color differentiation is real but that doesn't mean that people with different skin colors are different races"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

This seemed to be different in that they accept skin color can be differentiated and is biological, but 1) "it still does not mean someone is of one race based on their skin color", and 2) "skin color is the only main trait categorizing people into races. The lack of any other trait means categorizing people based on their skin color does not correspond to meaningful biological groups that exist outside the human social constructs".

The premises are not properly connected to their conclusions. Shouldn't the conclusions that come from accepting skin color as a biological phenomena be, people can be categorized into one race based on their skin color? How can that categorization be a social construct when it is based on a biological phenomena?

GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"? by CuteAsDuck in GCdebatesQT

[–]CuteAsDuck[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The researchers over-emphasised the neurological similarities between homosexuals and heterosexuals of the opposite sex

Because they are homophobic, aren't actually researchers, and did indirectly do that "research" so others make the leap from "brains of gay men are similar to brains of straight women" to "gay men are just women in male bodies" or "gay men have female brains". Otherwise, there was no point in emphasizing those similarities when the brains of everyone is similar to a degree ...

GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"? by CuteAsDuck in GCdebatesQT

[–]CuteAsDuck[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't think that's misunderstanding the articles. They may not directly say gay men have female brains, but by emphasizing on gay men's brains being similar to women's brains in structure when all brains are similar in structure to a degree regardless of sex, the articles along with their "scientists" are homophobic, intend on giving the impression gay men are "psychologically women" or "straight women trapped in male bodies" or things similar. Homophobes know their way with words. To lure an audience, they hide behind certain conclusions, such as "gay men have similar brains to straight women", indirectly saying that "gay men have female brains" while playing with words.

The sources, and the experiments of the articles you defend are homophobic indeed, as you say so in your response to my question in your second line.

GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"? by CuteAsDuck in GCdebatesQT

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

Rather than misunderstanding the "science", I'm presenting popular interpretation of those studies, just one example of it which received attention: https://imgur.com/SNcZLGV

Same goes on reddit. When someone explains gay men's attraction to men, they claim because their brains are similar in structure to women, that they are "psychologically women" or "female brains inside male bodies".

We can only "misunderstand" the "science", if we know what the intents of these "scientists" are for claiming brains of gay men are similar in structure to the brains of women. All brains are similar in structure to one another. Why emphasize on gay men's brains "being similar" to the brains of "straight women"? What do they plan to achieve with such studies, if not to give others the impression gay men are "heterosexual women gone wrong", "heterosexual women inside male bodies" or "psychologically heterosexual women"? And how are you sure their intents aren't to give this impression?

They have successfully achieved to give many this impression. Now, wherever I go, I hear "gay men are psychologically women", and "gay men have female brains". If they didn't plan on giving this impression, and on their "science" to be misunderstood, they should have done a better job explaining their studies.

GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"? by CuteAsDuck in GCdebatesQT

[–]CuteAsDuck[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

... That's a good question. They think trans women have female brains, and lesbians have male brains. The conclusion is transbians have male brains and because they define a man as someone with a male brain it means transbians are men. They just debunked themselves? 🤔

GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"? by CuteAsDuck in GCdebatesQT

[–]CuteAsDuck[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not saying the studies are right or wrong at all, I just presented the studies, and the ideas that come with them so I can spark a discussion about them. If they are wrong, I'd be interested in studies that provide evidence to the contrary (because I realize they sound homophobic).

GC: What are your arguments against "lesbians and trans men are men in women's bodies" and "gay men and trans women are women in men's bodies"?

by CuteAsDuck to /s/GCdebatesQT from self.GCdebatesQT

Do you have arguments against "there is no such a thing as a pure ethnic/racial group, no such a thing as a pure korean, japanese, chinese, vietnamese, german, etc, because everyone is mixed" and "there is no such a thing as a race/ethnic group"? by [deleted] in debatealtright

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

The color analogy is very interesting to me. If we mix red and yellow, we get orange. In the context of race, orange would be considered descending from red and yellow. It could share 50% of its material with red, while 50% with yellow, perhaps 40% with red, while 60% with yellow. But nobody would say that means orange is not fully/pure orange (though I'd like to know why, why is it that we consider it fully/pure orange despite it descending from two different colors? Do you know why?)

What about, e.g. a korean that has a percentage of siberian gene because they descend from siberian ancestors? Would it be correct to say this individual is still fully korean, and not partly korean/partly siberian/not fully korean, because the mixture of these genes creates the full/pure korean ethnicity?

Or what about a german, italian, australian, etc that have a percentage of african genes, because everyone essentially descends from african ancestors? Would it be correct to consider these individuals fully german, fully italian, fully australian, etc?

In here, a geneticist claims no race can be pure, because of these genetic mixings: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/02/harvard-geneticist-no-populations-dna-is-pure/

What are your thoughts on that?