You're all Transgender hens until Proven Otherwise!!

Kev_2012

Meesared wrote: »

You might think so, but it doesnt make you any less WRONG

Huh? How the hell is that wrong? Who are you to tell me that I am wrong? I am a man (male in case you wanna argue that for some reason) because I have a wang. Women don't have them, that is why they are women. Jesus christ I actually cannot believe you are trying to argue this point with me. It's not a religious or opinionated discussion, I'm talking facts here!!! :mad:

Donnielighto

This word is causing confusion. From what I can find it is synonymous or nearly synonymous with sex.

http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf

Unless we come to a conclusion on this (unlikely) I suggest using gender roles and sex and leaving the word gender on its own alone.

Mardy Bum

strobe wrote: »

Sexuality is a societal construct?

Care to expand on that a little there man?

I just meant the manner in which sexuality is treated in some areas of society. Homo-bad, hetero-good etc. Sexuality is generated and built around relationships based on dependence. Patriarchal structures form our versions of reality. Patriarchy is repudiated by heterosexuality and so this is seen as the correct sexuality and so it is culturally accepted and widely practised. Patriarchal structures are socially constructs i.e Christianity.

Millicent

Donnielighto wrote: »

because it is fashionable to do so

Yes, I want to be considered on my merits as a person rather than by the attributes traditionally assigned to my gender because it's "fashionable". FFS. :rolleyes:

wonderfulname

Donnielighto wrote: »

eh, you asked me what i define it as. I looked, checked it out and it seems that is has been used to replace the word sex despite some areas keeping the. While there is ambiguity in this i think the difference is that what you refer to as gender i would refer to as gender role(s) and for your sex i would have sex/gender. So it is the

That is because, as I already said, your personal sex and psychological gender match, but that isn't the same for everybody, ergo: different.

Donnielighto wrote: »

You are interpreting this differently to what I intended. Intentionally I suspect.

Unless you have other sources I'll take this
http://www.oeb.harvard.edu/faculty/haig/publications_files/04inexorablerise.pdf

That example isn't "interchanging", it illustrates the change in understanding since the 60's/70's that psychological gender and sex are different. It also illustrates feminist usage of the word to overcome the idea that men and women are inherently hugely different. But despite this, I have to ask why you insist on reverting to "usage" over "definition", is it because you know that you are technically incorrect, but as you cannot see evidence for such in yourself, you revert to other explanations?

ScumLord

Kev_2012 wrote: »

My god these topics are getting well out of hand. If I have kids, they will be taught that males have penises, females have vaginas, and that males and females have relations together.

You don't really need to teach them that though, it's obvious from an early age. What will you do if your son partakes in girly things? If you see him with a barbie doll will you give out to him and tell him he's not allowed to play with it? Will you teach your little girl to be a housewife? Or tell her she can't play football?

Mardy Bum

Donnielighto wrote: »

So he hasn't? Genuine question cos my mate who has 2 psychology masters says he isn't the god of psychology that people seem to think. Mind you she is doing criminal psychology or something like that so it might just be that part that he is questioned on.

Freud's the founder of the area. Lacanian theory is current now in psychoanalytical circles and by Lacan's own admission he was a Freudian but obviously he critiqued Freud's ideas and came up with his own stuff.

Donnielighto

Millicent wrote: »

Yes, I want to be considered on my merits as a person rather than by the attributes traditionally assigned to my gender because it's "fashionable". FFS. :rolleyes:

That isn't what i was getting at at all. Both nature and nurture are important forces in life nurture is clear for to see but the nature part comes down to genetics affecting the predispositions we have as individuals. How do you get that I am disagreeing with a person being judged own their own is a bit annoying really.

The end of your post is pretty annoying btw.

wonderfulname

Donnielighto wrote: »

Unless we come to a conclusion on this (unlikely) I suggest using gender roles and sex and leaving the word gender on its own alone.

It's causing confusion for you.

To overly simplify:

• Gender: Between the ears
• Sex: Between the legs
• Gender role: External

strobe

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I just meant the manner in which sexuality is treated in some areas of society. Homo-bad, hetero-good etc.

Ah well that's something different. That's 'socially constructed attitudes to sexuality are socially constructed' which, yes obviously is true...

Mardy Bum wrote:

Sexuality is generated and built around relationships based on dependence. Patriarchal structures form our versions of reality. Patriarchy is repudiated by heterosexuality and so this is seen as the correct sexuality and so it is culturally accepted and widely practised. Patriarchal structures are socially constructs i.e Christianity.

But now you've said something else I don't follow. Ehh, 'Patriarchy is repudiated by heterosexuality'... what?
Also are you really going on to say that heterosexuality is widely practiced because it is seen as the correct sexuality? Surely not? That's quite an odd statement...

Meesared

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Huh? How the hell is that wrong? Who are you to tell me that I am wrong? I am a man (male in case you wanna argue that for some reason) because I have a wang. Women don't have them, that is why they are women. Jesus christ I actually cannot believe you are trying to argue this point with me. It's not a religious or opinionated discussion, I'm talking facts here!!! :mad:

Because Gender is not what is between your legs, you are mistaking that with Sex.
Also in your previous comment, "Scarred for life"? Get over yourself

wonderfulname

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Huh? How the hell is that wrong? Who are you to tell me that I am wrong? I am a man (male in case you wanna argue that for some reason) because I have a wang.

You are wrong, if you woke up in the morning and you had no "wang", do you think you would suddenly view yourself as female, or would you be distressed because you were a man without a "wang"?




...Wang

drunkmonkey

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Freud's the founder of the area.

Freud didn't cut his dick off and didn't encouraged it either. If he thought his words would cause men to mutilate there wobbly bits and use drugs to grow tits he more than likely wouldn't of put it in writing.

Rocket19

As many have already rightly pointed out, the concepts of "gender" and "sex" are NOT the same thing.
While sex is (obviously) biologically determined, gender isn't. Gender is culturally constructed, and is a purely social construct of biological difference.

Make no mistake, the message of gender is drilled into us from a VERY early age. It is deeply ingrained into the psyche, and comes at us from all angles in society really; from our families, "wider society", and the media. I mean, these gender roles are SO ingrained, that an image of a little boy pushing a pink pram actually causes "controversy". It's ridiculous!
When you walk into a toy shop, the "girls' section", and "boys' section" are worlds away from each other. You'll notice the that the girls' aisles are awash with glitter and pink, with most of the toys centreing on domestic life (babies/cooking/housekeeping) and beauty. The boys' aisles focus more on cars, planes, adventure, things you build - 'boys' stuff'.
There's hardly any medium. While some toys are not as heavily gendered (arts&crafts, etc), most really do succumb to these very defined gender roles.

I do have some problems with the Swedish catalogue, because funnily enough, it enforces some stereotypes. Firstly, OK, the little boy is wearing a Spiderman costume and is pushing a pram. But his pose is very suggestive of him being gay. I know that's quite silly to say about a child, but his pose IS what we adults would consider typically "camp". Why did they do this? I don't think there should have been any hints of sexuality whatsoever, but maybe I'm looking too far into it.
I get the impression that the catalogue was a deliberate attempt to create controversy. I mean, they could have used less gendered toys to make their point, but instead they used a boy wearing a (highly gendered) boys' costume and a pink, very "girly" pram. The colours, etc make us blatantly aware that, LOOK, this boy is playing with a GIRLS' toy.
What they really should be doing is blurring the lines between what is suitable for boys and what is suitable for girls. I don't think it was very forward thinking.

dilapidating

Thank you for introducing me to Sweden’s midweek revellers.

Kev_2012

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't really need to teach them that though, it's obvious from an early age. What will you do if your son partakes in girly things? If you see him with a barbie doll will you give out to him and tell him he's not allowed to play with it? Will you teach your little girl to be a housewife? Or tell her she can't play football?

I'm not going to tell them what to do, they can do what they want, but I'm not going to give them toys destined for a child of the opposite sex!

Just as an example, a man could have a big interest in fashion or a woman can play sport and still be straight, but the general consensus is that it's the other way around. I'm not going to ever tell them that being gay or transgender is ok, because in my opinion it's not. N.B. whatever about homosexuality, transgender for me is so wrong it defies logic!!!!

wonderfulname

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Just as an example, a man could have a big interest in fashion or a woman can play sport and still be straight, but the general consensus is that it's the other way around. I'm not going to ever tell them that being gay or transgender is ok, because in my opinion it's not. N.B. whatever about homosexuality, transgender for me is so wrong it defies logic!!!!

:pac:

You should open your eyes, what's going on in your head does not constitute "general consensus".

Meesared

Kev_2012 wrote: »

transgender for me is so wrong it defies logic!!!!

Why though?

Millicent

Donnielighto wrote: »

That isn't what i was getting at at all. Both nature and nurture are important forces in life nurture is clear for to see but the nature part comes down to genetics affecting the predispositions we have as individuals. How do you get that I am disagreeing with a person being judged own their own is a bit annoying really.

The end of your post is pretty annoying btw.

In fairness, your post saying that academics and scientists engage in nature/nurture gender study because it's "fashionable" is no less annoying.

So, typically--and I'm not being aggressive here but genuinely wondering--what genetic predisposition would you assign to both genders?

Kev_2012

Meesared wrote: »

Because Gender is not what is between your legs, you are mistaking that with Sex.
Also in your previous comment, "Scarred for life"? Get over yourself

So you're telling me that I could have a penis and still be female? That is absolutely the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

And yes, scarred for life. I am straight and never want relations with a man or someone who "used to be" a man. It's form of fraud IMO.

wonderfulname wrote: »

You are wrong, if you woke up in the morning and you had no "wang", do you think you would suddenly view yourself as female, or would you be distressed because you were a man without a "wang"?




...Wang

No, I'd still be a man because I was born with one. You are just picking at my comment because I didn't make the options mutually exclusive. And of course I'd be distressed!!! Jesus christ I feel like i'm on a different planet to 10 years ago. Did ye all get brainwashed or something? Facts are facts.

awec

ScumLord wrote: »

You don't really need to teach them that though, it's obvious from an early age. What will you do if your son partakes in girly things? If you see him with a barbie doll will you give out to him and tell him he's not allowed to play with it? Will you teach your little girl to be a housewife? Or tell her she can't play football?

There is a difference between giving out to them and promoting a young boy playing with dolls, which is what the advert does.

Donnielighto

wonderfulname wrote: »

That is because, as I already said, your personal sex and psychological gender match, but that isn't the same for everybody, ergo: different.

I had to edit the bit you quoted slightly due to mistakes but i dont think it will affect your response so here I go...

I have already explained where I was coming from and the usage of gender role would cause less confusion In my post above you'll see that i think the term gender shouldnt be used in this discussion as it is causing issues by itself due to different interpretations.

wonderfulname wrote: »

That example isn't "interchanging", it illustrates the change in understanding since the 60's/70's that psychological gender and sex are different. It also illustrates feminist usage of the word to overcome the idea that men and women are inherently hugely different. But despite this, I have to ask why you insist on reverting to "usage" over "definition", is it because you know that you are technically incorrect, but as you cannot see evidence for such in yourself, you revert to other explanations?

No no no. The same as my use (and i suspect your) use of the word irony which was grossly misused and has come to mean something different that it initially did. Usage of a word dictates its meaning. The arguements about the use of the term gender are derailing this thread slightly. I just saw the other post and at his stage you are being condescending. I know what you are referring to when you say gender but the fact you wont acknowledge that others mightn't just seems a bit militant.

Mardy Bum

strobe wrote: »

Ah well that's something different. That's 'social constructed attitudes to sexuality are socially constructed' which, yes obviously is true...

But now you've said something else I don't follow. Ehh, 'Patriarchy is repudiated by heterosexuality'... what?
Also are you really going on to say that heterosexuality is widely practiced because it is seen as the correct sexuality? Surely not? That's quite an odd statement...

The most widespread and significant form of sexuality in Ancient Greece was pederasty. Do you think that had something to do with the social view of it or where they all paedos?
First bit was a typo in that I meant to say within patriarchal societies gender consists of two opposite or complementary modes of being human, one more valued than the other. In order for man to continue to dominate woman heterosexuality is vital.

awec

I look forward to the day when I hopefully have a son and I can play soccer in the garden with him, when I can take him to the football and when he's old enough, go for a beer.

If that makes me some sort of closed minded, anti-PC nutjob because I want to play soccer with him and not dolls then so be it.

Political correctness has gone mad. It is going to get to the stage where you'll be afraid to call someone boy or girl incase you offend them and get it wrong.

I have no problem with transgenders, homosexuals or anyone like that, none whatsoever, they are free to do whatever they want. In fact I would have issue with anyone who dislikes them or is in any way prejudiced. But some of the stuff in this thread is ridiculous to be frank.

Donnielighto

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Freud didn't cut his dick off and didn't encouraged it either. If he thought his words would cause men to mutilate there wobbly bits and use drugs to grow tits he more than likely wouldn't of put it in writing.

You are doing nobody any favours in this. Your posts are agressive in tone, entrenching both sides and more than likely making people who would agree with some of your premises reason not to publicly do so.

armitage_skanks

I think it is PC gone mad when people are going on about gender roles being a creation of society and women and men being exactly the same.

Men and women are different, inside and out. It's a fact of life and there's nothing 'wrong' with it or nothing that needs to be fixed/addressed.

jill_valentine

It used to be okay for girls to want Lego. That's been marketed away now, and girls are only encouraged to buy the pink premade dollhouses or just given Bratz for Christmas.

So yeah, OP, I have a lot of problems with the treatment of gender in advertising, but not with Spiderman pushing a buggy.

It's okay for a girl to wear trousers or cut her hair short or adopt some of the western stereotypical traits of a man. That's all fine and dandy, a curiosity perhaps, but it doesn't provoke nearly the same sense of disgust from AH. But for a man to adopt any of the reverse behaviours is considered shameful and abhorrent and repulsive to some posters, purely because deep down, you think it's a step down on the food chain; it's trading down to adopt a role they think of as female. Don't think for one second that female posters don't recognise this, even if you don't.

So when you start talking to me about destructive attitudes being ingrained in our children, you'll forgive me if I find it blackly ironic.

I particularly liked that poster talking about how nobody wants to be "spiderbitch". Really? You saw that there on your screen and thought "Yes, Post Reply, that's exactly what I want to say"?

Millicent

awec wrote: »

I look forward to the day when I hopefully have a son and I can play soccer in the garden with him, when I can take him to the football and when he's old enough, go for a beer.

If that makes me some sort of closed minded, anti-PC nutjob because I want to play soccer with him and not dolls then so be it.

Political correctness has gone mad. It is going to get to the stage where you'll be afraid to call someone boy or girl incase you offend them and get it wrong.

I have no problem with transgenders, homosexuals or anyone like that, none whatsoever, they are free to do whatever they want. But some of the stuff in this thread is ridiculous to be frank.

Who says you can't play footie with him? And what if, for whatever reason, he doesn't like sports? Will he be less of a son to you?

What parts are ridiculous in this thread?

drunkmonkey

@Donnie there's a lot of flapping about.

Pedo bear has just entered the thread, time for people to say what they think and I stand by my last comment. Freuds words are being twisted to say he encouraged castration. It's bull, sorry just the way I see it.

Kev_2012

wonderfulname wrote: »

:pac:

You should open your eyes, what's going on in your head does not constitute "general consensus".

Huh? You aren't even making sense. Are you trying to tell me that more people think that social roles aren't related to sex than people that do? Come on now let's not get silly here.

Meesared wrote: »

Why though?

Ok, I am a VERY open minded person, but I always think in a very logical manner, and if something doesn't make sense logically, then I generally don't agree with it.

What to do if someone who's gender doesn't match their sex (using the boards.ie definition of gender and sex).

If they are attracted to people of the same sex, then they are gay.
If they like things that are generally associated with the opposite sex, then can be straight.

Is there such thing as a person that was born male, gets the operation, but still likes women?? That makes no sense to me.

Mardy Bum

drunkmonkey wrote: »

@Donnie there's a lot of flapping about.

Pedo bear has just entered the thread, time for people to say what they think and I stand by my last comment. Freuds words are being twisted to say he encouraged castration. It's bull, sorry just the way I see it.

You have no idea what you are on about. The castration complex has nothing to do with literal castration.

Meesared

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Ok, I am a VERY open minded person, but I always think in a very logical manner, and if something doesn't make sense logically, then I generally don't agree with it.

What to do if someone who's gender doesn't match their sex (using the boards.ie definition of gender and sex).

Oh yes you are SOOOOO open minded, yet you think being Trans is wrong :rolleyes:

Kev_2012 wrote: »

If they are attracted to people of the same sex, then they are gay.
If they like things that are generally associated with the opposite sex, then can be straight.

Is there such thing as a person that was born male, gets the operation, but still likes women?? That makes no sense to me.

None of this makes any sense, since when does what gender you are have to do with what you are attracted to?

awec

Millicent wrote: »

Who says you can't play footie with him? And what if, for whatever reason, he doesn't like sports? Will he be less of a son to you?

What parts are ridiculous in this thread?

If he doesn't like sport, so be it. Certainly no less of a son.

It won't be a case of "ah you don't like football? Here's a baby and a pram." If it turns out he is into girly things then fine, but to actually promote those things to him would be wrong.

The ridiculous parts are where people try to argue that men and women are really the same. They are not. They are inherently different. They are into different things. This is reality. No matter how much people try to deny it, it will remain reality. The attempts to blur the lines between men and women is nothing other than modern day political correctness gone into overdrive.

It won't be long before the words "boy" and "girl" are taboo, because I'd be offending someone and discriminating against them if I called them a boy but they considered themselves a girl, even though they look like a guy. It is getting way, way OTT.

Donnielighto

Millicent wrote: »

In fairness, your post saying that academics and scientists engage in nature/nurture gender study because it's "fashionable" is no less annoying.

So, typically--and I'm not being aggressive here but genuinely wondering--what genetic predisposition would you assign to both genders?

Fair point, i should have expanded, just thought it has been done in depth at this stage.

The predispositions I meant in a general sense in that it differs from person to person. Genetics affects the mind as much as the body though but im guessing nurture would have more effects on mind than body. I'll probably get crucified for some parts of this now but things that are male dispositions would I assume be.... attraction to women, violence(both physical, including sport, and a general agresiveness) where as female would be the opposite (since we are talking essentially about relative tendencies here if ones above average the other must be below.

wonderfulname

Donnielighto wrote: »

No no no. The same as my use (and i suspect your) use of the word irony which was grossly misused and has come to mean something different that it initially did. Usage of a word dictates its meaning. The arguements about the use of the term gender are derailing this thread slightly. I just saw the other post and at his stage you are being condescending. I know what you are referring to when you say gender but the fact you wont acknowledge that others mightn't just seems a bit militant.

Where Irony is concerned, it has multiple similar definitions (all recognised), if it makes you feel more comfortable you can view gender as such, and in my opinion you are not seeing the nuances of language in this instance.

You might see the other posts as militant, some who've paid less attention will probably think I'm just a dick, but I'm really just sick to death of people expressing a boorish and insulting "opinion" as though it is fact.

Millicent

drunkmonkey wrote: »

@Donnie there's a lot of flapping about.

Pedo bear has just entered the thread, time for people to say what they think and I stand by my last comment. Freuds words are being twisted to say he encouraged castration. It's bull, sorry just the way I see it.

I thought you were going to respond to my post today? It wouldn't be that you're just ignoring people for the sake of not having to discuss your opinions with other posters, would it?

I agree with Donnie. You're not exactly helping your cause with your posting style.

Mardy Bum

awec wrote: »

The ridiculous parts are where people try to argue that men and women are really the same. They are not. They are inherently different. They are into different things. This is reality. No matter how much people try to deny it, it will remain reality.

Nobody said man and woman are the same. Man and woman are subjective social constructions. Male and female are different to this. The argument is that society privileges certain types of masculinity and femininity despite the fact that there is a multiplicity of both as they are imaginary positions created through discourse. You should publish a few academic papers now so if you reckon you can prove it because there are not many doing so.

Links234

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Is there such thing as a person that was born male, gets the operation, but still likes women?? That makes no sense to me.

yes, there are lesbian/gay/bi trans people out there

I happen to be one!

why? 'cos a person's gender identity is separate to their sexuality


and you know, say what you will about being transgender, it's the single greatest asshole filter in the world

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPRpGnHYTSw

Donnielighto

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Is there such thing as a person that was born male, gets the operation, but still likes women?? That makes no sense to me.

A person born male that sees themself as a woman and is attracted to women. Seems not much difference between that and the normal transgender who was born male and attracted to men. The issue of what they see themselves as and who they are attracted to are different issues. men arent solely attracted to women and vice versa. makes sense that the sexuality difference would be there regardless of whether they are transexual or not

Carlos_Ray

You'd have to be extremely naive to believe that this is anything more than a clever marketing ploy. They people responsible for this toy catalogue care about one thing...profit.

The best trolls work in marketing.

jill_valentine

On the subject of just how gendered marketing has become - and having worked in a toyshop and seen little boys slapped by their parents for trying to buy something pink - here's a nice illustration of just what's happened to Lego:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57408099-1/gender-bending-lego-ad-remixer-mashes-up-ninjas-puppies/

I'm willing to bet nearly every female capable of posting on boards.ie right now played with freeform Lego as a child, a toy that encourages active play and imaginative construction. This will not be so for the next generation, and that breaks my heart. Somehow, in terms of toy marketing, we've managed to go backwards, and that boggles my mind.

Kev_2012

Meesared wrote: »

Oh yes you are SOOOOO open minded, yet you think being Trans is wrong :rolleyes:



None of this makes any sense, since when does what gender you are have to do with what you are attracted to?

Yeah because I do! I also think that racism, war and murder is wrong! I don't have to agree with everything to be open minded! But I do draw the line here. I also think that people should be allowed to say whatever they like using any tone or bad language etc.etc. but it's frowned upon. Are you going to stand up for my rights to say the word "c*nt" in public in Canada where you get dogs abuse for saying it?

What? Of course it has something to do with it! if you are male physically and mentally then you like females!!! My point is, that you don't have to mutilate yourself if you are mentally different.

Millicent

Donnielighto wrote: »

Fair point, i should have expanded, just thought it has been done in depth at this stage.

The predispositions I meant in a general sense in that it differs from person to person. Genetics affects the mind as much as the body though but im guessing nurture would have more effects on mind than body. I'll probably get crucified for some parts of this now but things that are male dispositions would I assume be.... attraction to women, violence(both physical, including sport, and a general agresiveness) where as female would be the opposite (since we are talking essentially about relative tendencies here if ones above average the other must be below.

I think *some* would be the important part there. I don't necessarily disagree to a point; testosterone, for example, would contribute to aggression. However those levels vary wildly across the sexes so they're not an effective yardstick. So while I agree they have an effect, they're only one part of a complex equation. To use genetics to define gender does both sexes a great disservice, IMO.

awec

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Nobody said man and woman are the same. Man and woman are subjective social constructions. Male and female are different to this. The argument is that society privileges certain types of masculinity and femininity despite the fact that there is a multiplicity of both as they are imaginary positions created through discourse. You should publish a few academic papers now so if you reckon you can prove it because there are not many doing so.

No, they are not. A man is a man and a woman is a woman. That is that.

Some men want to be women, some women want to be men. Fair enough, no dispute there. That's up to them, but they were men before and women after (or vice versa).

Links234

Kev_2012 wrote: »

My point is, that you don't have to mutilate yourself if you are mentally different.

I've always noticed how people who are generally against transgender people love to throw around the word "mutilate"

Donnielighto

Kev_2012 wrote: »

What? Of course it has something to do with it! if you are male physically and mentally then you like females!!! My point is, that you don't have to mutilate yourself if you are mentally different.

Tell that to Gareth Thomas or Donal og Cusack...

Kev_2012

Links234 wrote: »

yes, there are lesbian/gay/bi trans people out there

I happen to be one!

why? 'cos a person's gender identity is separate to their sexuality


and you know, say what you will about being transgender, it's the single greatest asshole filter in the world

So why physically become a woman to have relations with a woman?

I'm sorry now but this makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Apologies, I'm sure you are a lovely person and all but I just don't agree with it.

Donnielighto wrote: »

A person born male that sees themself as a woman and is attracted to women. Seems not much difference between that and the normal transgender who was born male and attracted to men. The issue of what they see themselves as and who they are attracted to are different issues. men arent solely attracted to women and vice versa. makes sense that the sexuality difference would be there regardless of whether they are transexual or not

My head hurts...

Meesared

Kev_2012 wrote: »

Yeah because I do! I also think that racism, war and murder is wrong! I don't have to agree with everything to be open minded! But I do draw the line here. I also think that people should be allowed to say whatever they like using any tone or bad language etc.etc. but it's frowned upon. Are you going to stand up for my rights to say the word "c*nt" in public in Canada where you get dogs abuse for saying it?

I'll just leave this here

Kev_2012

Links234 wrote: »

I've always noticed how people who are generally against transgender people love to throw around the word "mutilate"

And watch the "likes" fly in! I used that word because it's first one that came to mind! What is the PC terminology so if you want me to use that?

Donnielighto

Millicent wrote: »

I think *some* would be the important part there. I don't necessarily disagree to a point; testosterone, for example, would contribute to aggression. However those levels vary wildly across the sexes so they're not an effective yardstick. So while I agree they have an effect, they're only one part of a complex equation. To use genetics to define gender does both sexes a great disservice, IMO.

I know, i just referring to averages across the respective populations.

Anyway Im out have a paer to write and study to do..... fml