Peak Trans

Rory28

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Googled her - giver her profession I'm assuming all the surgery has been completed ?

Absolutely female then. And a bit of a fox!

I'd agree but as far as I know she is keeping the tackle.

SterlingArcher

Rory28 wrote: »

Now a bit tongue in cheek but would you consider Bailey Jay to be a man? Penis and all?

Do not google if you are in work

I'd prefer Theryn Meyer. an interesting person.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Dear lord. Newton’s laws were the best attempt of explaining what we (he) knew based on his repeatable experiments. In hindsight we know the limits of his experiments.

Everything we talk about comes with a certain “as far as we now know”.

I know full well that you can tell the difference between a man and a woman with hgh certainty. Don’t kid us.

If a trans woman has not yet transitioned or is still living and dressing as a man and has not told me she is a trans woman then I cannot tell that she is a woman. But she is a woman.

KrustyUCC

Rory28 wrote: »

I'd agree but as far as I know she is keeping the tackle.

So basically like a Ladyboy in Thailand

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a trans woman has not yet transitioned or is still living and dressing as a man and has not told me she is a trans woman then I cannot tell that she is a woman. But she is a woman.

I actually had to read that a few times!

That would be a man. You failed.

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

If a trans woman has not yet transitioned or is still living and dressing as a man and has not told me she is a trans woman then I cannot tell that she is a woman. But she is a woman.

To whom?

If she hasn't told you she's a woman and appears to be and dresses like a man then she is a man, to you. (and everyone else she hasn't told)

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

I actually had to read that a few times!

That would be a man. You failed.

By your subjective criteria maybe.

But she’s a woman.

KrustyUCC

If a man has not yet transitioned or is still living and dressing as a man and has not told me he is wanting to be a trans woman then I cannot tell that he wants to be a trans woman. But he is a man

Malayalam

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Googled her - giver her profession I'm assuming all the surgery has been completed ?

Absolutely female then. And a bit of a fox!

You did not google properly.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

To whom?

If she hasn't told you she's a woman and appears to be and dresses like a man then she is a man, to you. (and everyone else she hasn't told)

So if a cis woman, has a vagina, breasts, and all the hormones typically associated with women, straps down her breasts, dresses as a man, gets a male haircut, just for the hell of it, and I assume and most other people assume she’s a man, then she’s a man?

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

By your subjective criteria maybe.

But she’s a woman.

If you took a group of 50 scientists and 50 doctors. How many out of the 100 would say woman?

LLMMLL

KrustyUCC wrote: »

If a man has not yet transitioned or is still living and dressing as a man and has not told me he is wanting to be a trans woman then I cannot tell that he wants to be a trans woman. But he is a man

No she’s a woman. She’s not “wanting to be a trans woman”.

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

So if a cis woman, has a vagina, breasts, and all the hormones typically associated with women, straps down her breasts, dresses as a man, gets a male haircut, just for the hell of it, and I assume and most other people assume she’s a man, then she’s a man?

No, because it's fairly obvious to spot when a woman is dressed as a man and not actually a man.

You're being disingenuous for the sake of argument by suggesting otherwise.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

If you took a group of 50 scientists and 50 doctors. How many out of the 100 would say woman?

Link?

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

Link?

Link?

They would win the bet and you would lose.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

No, because it's fairly obvious to spot when a woman is dressed as a man and not actually a man.

You're being disingenuous for the sake of argument by suggesting otherwise.

I’m not actually.

There’s a woman in my gym I always assumed was Male until I saw an ad she put up on a noticeboard.

BattleCorp

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Googled her - giver her profession I'm assuming all the surgery has been completed ?

Absolutely female then. And a bit of a fox!

Sorry I googled. Yes, there's tackle.

Wouldn't qualify as female according to my rules.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Link?

They would win the bet and you would lose.

Huh? I’m asking you to provide a link where 100 doctors and scientists don’t “say woman”. Still waiting.

DEFTLEFTHAND

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

If you took a group of 50 scientists and 50 doctors. How many out of the 100 would say woman?

Give the 'wrong' answer and you could be reported to the medical council and shamed on social media.

It's not worth risking 7 yrs of study. Lol

KrustyUCC

LLMMLL wrote: »

No she’s a woman. She’s not “wanting to be a trans woman”.

How exactly is someone a woman who hasn't transitioned and is or is still living and dressing as a man and has not told me he was wanting to transition at all?

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m not actually.

There’s a woman in my gym I always assumed was Male until I saw an ad she put up on a noticeboard.

That is a woman that looks like a man. Her or your identification doesn’t change it. That’s the whole point people are making. It is unproductive to rewrite the definitions of what a man is and what a woman is. We all know the truth is set from birth.

SterlingArcher

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m not actually.

There’s a woman in my gym I always assumed was Male until I saw an ad she put up on a noticeboard.

So I hope you were a good person and gave one last final courtesy ****.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

Huh? I’m asking you to provide a link where 100 doctors and scientists don’t “say woman”. Still waiting.

Oh good luck. You know what I mean.

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m not actually.

There’s a woman in my gym I always assumed was Male until I saw an ad she put up on a noticeboard.

So the fact that you saw one masculine looking woman in the gym meant that you cannot tell when women dress up as men?

Halloween must be very confusing for you

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

That is a woman that looks like a man. Her or your identification doesn’t change it. That’s the whole point people are making. It is unproductive to rewrite the definitions of what a man is and what a woman is. We all know the truth is set from birth.

Actually the poster I responded to seemed to be saying that it was me and others perceiving someone as a man bat made them a man.

Identification doesn’t change it. Identification is identifying what they actually are.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

So the fact that you saw one masculine looking woman in the gym meant that you cannot tell when women dress up as men?

Halloween must be very confusing for you

Well by your criteria above, my assumption she was Male makes her Male. I’m just pointing out how silly that is.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

Oh good luck. You know what I mean.

I do. It’s the classic “if I asked 100 blah blah blah”, “did you ask 100.....”, “well ..... no.... but rabble rabble”.

I had an argument about physics with a friend once. We couldn’t agree:

Friend: if Stephen hawking said it would you agree with me then?

Me: probably. Did Stephen hawking say it?

Friend: ummmmmmm.......

Me: facepalm.

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well by your criteria above, my assumption she was Male makes her Male. I’m just pointing out how silly that is.

Gender assumptions based on physical appearance can be wrong.

However it is in a very small proportion of daily interactions. Such a small proportion that it would almost be negligible. (I'd imagine being on a gym scene would boost the possibility of it happening)

If a woman dresses as a man to pretend to be male as you said, then I am almost certain most people could spot it a mile away.

I've seen loads of instances, even where women genuinely have very androgynous features - you can still tell it's a female.

SterlingArcher

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m not actually.

There’s a woman in my gym I always assumed was Male until I saw an ad she put up on a noticeboard.

Goes to my gym. Oooh your gym...check the privilege on this one.

Hey everybody I'm a scientist who goes the gym....


Get outta here nerd, quit trying to flex.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

A significant number of people who have penises but say they are not Male is enough to make me question that the subjective criteria we use to describe Male/female is lacking.

What’s a significant number of people and is that number scientifically relevant as a percentage of the overall population ?

_Kaiser_

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Googled her - giver her profession I'm assuming all the surgery has been completed ?

Absolutely female then. And a bit of a fox!

I'd disagree on that one myself.

How someone lives their life (male/female/straight/gay/bi/whatever) is overwhelmingly none of my concern and it's legitimately great that they can do that, but when it comes to a relationship or sex you cannot deny the real differences, biology and history that go beyond surgeries and hormone treatments.

As a straight man (no cis nonsense either) I'm only interested in original, biological women and discovering anything else would not only be a instant deal breaker, but a betrayal of trust.

Again I have no issue with how a grown adult, who is fully aware of the implications, chooses to live their life so long as it does not unduly impact on anyone else.. but all the cosmetic and drug/hormone treatments in the world will not make them 100% indistinguishable from a biological man/woman and I am not obliged to accept them as such - especially in the context of a relationship (although from the perspective of simple everyday interaction I would call them whatever name, refer to as he/she as they desired out of simple courtesy and common human decency).

Does that make me "-phobic"? Maybe... do/should I care? No! - and THAT is my right too.

LLMMLL

o1s1n wrote: »

Gender assumptions based on physical appearance can be wrong.

However it is in a very small proportion of daily interactions. Such a small proportion that it would almost be negligible. (I'd imagine being on a gym scene would boost the possibility of it happening)

If a woman dresses as a man to pretend to be male as you said, then I am almost certain most people could spot it a mile away.

I've seen loads of instances, even where women genuinely have very androgynous features - you can still tell it's a female.

Yet I know scores of butcher women who love to tell stories about being addressed as “sir”.

But you’re right in one sense. It is rare. And I’ve no problem with someone assuming someone is Male or female. I did it myself with the woman at the gym.

But that doesn’t make your assumption correct or part of some criteria. If I assume someone’s a man and they tell me they’re a masculine looking woman (cis woman) then I’m like “ok they’re a woman”. Equally if they tell me they’re a transgender woman I’m like “ok they’re a woman”.

I’m not like “oh well since I can tell correctly in most cases therefore you’re a man no matter what you say”.

HappyAsLarE

LLMMLL wrote: »

I do. It’s the classic “if I asked 100 blah blah blah”, “did you ask 100.....”, “well ..... no.... but rabble rabble”.

I had an argument about physics with a friend once. We couldn’t agree:

Friend: if Stephen hawking said it would you agree with me then?

Me: probably. Did Stephen hawking say it?

Friend: ummmmmmm.......

Me: facepalm.

I didn’t say 100 scientists said anything. I asked you, as a betting man/woman, how many would say woman.

If you don’t say “probably 100” you are lying.

If you admit to “probably 100” then you’re next question to answer is - are they all wrong?

LLMMLL

Rennaws wrote: »

What’s a significant number of people and is that number scientifically relevant as a percentage of the overall population ?

There’s no clear boundary on what number is significant.

I’ve no idea what you mean by scientifically relevant.

ceadaoin.

LLMMLL wrote: »

It has elements of subjectivity and objectivity.

But that’s not the important distinction of criteria for a vet.

For a vet what matters is that the criteria he uses are ADEQUATE.

Which they would be in this case.

What about when it's actually important to know the sex of a person? Such as for medical treatment. It's well known that say symptoms of a heart attack present differently in males and females, resulting in females often being misdiagnosed. Certain medications might work differently or not work at all. Should a doctor perform prostate checks on a female who identifies as a man so that their identity is validated? Smear tests on a trans woman? Are they transphobic if they refuse?

Humans are animals, it's pretty easy to identify
sex. Biological facts are unchangeable and do matter in many circumstances, no amount of feelings are going to change that.

LLMMLL

HappyAsLarE wrote: »

I didn’t say 100 scientists said anything. I asked you, as a betting man/woman, how many would say woman.

If you don’t say “probably 100” you are lying.

If you admit to “probably 100” then you’re next question to answer is - are they all wrong?

This is all just your personal opinion. I’ve no idea what 100 scientists and doctors would say. Neither do you. If you think you do then you’re also “lying”.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

There’s no clear boundary on what number is significant.

I’ve no idea what you mean by scientifically relevant.

You don't seem to have a clear boundary on anything regarding male or female except that you can choose what you like and biology doesn't matter

LLMMLL

ceadaoin. wrote: »

What about when it's actually important to know the sex of a person? Such as for medical treatment. It's well known that say symptoms of a heart attack present differently in males and females, resulting in females often being misdiagnosed. Certain medications might work differently or not work at all. Should a doctor perform prostate checks on a female who identifies as a man so that their identity is validated? Smear tests on a trans woman? Are they transphobic if they refuse?

Humans are animals, it's pretty easy to identify
sex. Biological facts are unchangeable and do matter in many circumstances, no amount of feelings are going to change that.

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here. The question was re vets doing a reach around. I’m pretty sure that’s not how a doctor identifies whether someone is Male or
Female. He could just ask them if they transitioned?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You don't seem to have a clear boundary on anything regarding male or female except that you can choose what you like and biology doesn't matter

Nope I don’t think trans people choose to be trans anymore than I think gay people choose to be gay.... sigh

Malayalam

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m not even sure what you’re saying here. The question was re vets doing a reach around. I’m pretty sure that’s not how a doctor identifies whether someone is Male or
Female. He could just ask them if they transitioned?

Transitioned from what?

_Kaiser_

Deleted User wrote: »

You don't seem to have a clear boundary on anything regarding male or female except that you can choose what you like and biology doesn't matter

As I've said myself on this or one of the many other similarly "progressive" threads, the biggest problem I think most people have is this notion that "feelings" > facts

Most people just have a hard time ignoring reality, biology, facts, precedent/history and what's right in front of them, and this is where the progressives start losing it.

bodice ripper

Deleted User wrote:

I'm not getting in your face. I am not asking you to put up with their price fixing either. I just think that if you dislike their methods or price fixing, go somewhere else.

Oh I do. It's kind of bull**** that I have to go through the rigmarole of encountering and interacting with these tossers to find out.

LLMMLL

Malayalam wrote: »

Transitioned from what?

From having a penis to not having one among other things.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope I don’t think trans people choose to be trans anymore than I think gay people choose to be gay.... sigh

Sigh all you like, but regardless of whether someone is born in what they perceive to be the wrong body, no matter of surgery will change the fact that they are biologically a man or a woman.

Malayalam

bodice ripper wrote: »

Oh I do. It's kind of bull**** that I have to go through the rigmarole of encountering and interacting with these tossers to find out.

That's kind of life, though. Navigating the obstacle course between one tosser after another :pac:

o1s1n

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yet I know scores of butcher women who love to tell stories about being addressed as “sir”.

But you’re right in one sense. It is rare. And I’ve no problem with someone assuming someone is Male or female. I did it myself with the woman at the gym.

But that doesn’t make your assumption correct or part of some criteria. If I assume someone’s a man and they tell me they’re a masculine looking woman (cis woman) then I’m like “ok they’re a woman”. Equally if they tell me they’re a transgender woman I’m like “ok they’re a woman”.

I’m not like “oh well since I can tell correctly in most cases therefore you’re a man no matter what you say”.

No, as the original example we were discussing (which is a little lost in all of the posts) was based on a situation where a trans woman hadn't told anyone they were trans (and still dressed as a male). Therefore I pointed out that they were, to everyone else, still a man.

You refuted that by saying they were 'a woman'.

My question was 'to whom?'.

What we subjectively experience in our minds and identify as and what other people identify us as upon seeing and interacting with us are two different things.

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Sigh all you like, but regardless of whether someone is born in what they perceive to be the wrong body, no matter of surgery will change the fact that they are biologically a man or a woman.

I think this point is missed by a lot of SJW.
Biology doesnt change, no matter which "bits" you chop off or add on.

Malayalam

LLMMLL wrote: »

From having a penis to not having one among other things.

Why would anyone have to ask that? Unless it's a blind doctor.

Transitioned from what?

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

There’s no clear boundary on what number is significant.

I didn’t ask if there was a clear boundary. You said a significant number of people with penis’s claim to be women. I asked you what is that significant number ?

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’ve no idea what you mean by scientifically relevant.

Well how many people with penis’s have to proclaim themselves as women before we have a large enough percentage to revisit the criteria by which we determine genders ? What percentage would be statistically relevant. Surely this would be bread and butter to a scientist.

kildare lad

I think some are trying to push an agenda on society and if you speak against it, you're a homophobe, sexist, genderist or whatever term new they come out with. My friends wife is a primary school teacher. She told me that a woman enrolled a 5 and 7 year old children to the school last year. She told the principal that she doesnt want her kids to be referred to as he\she, they should use the pronouns them\they as shes bringing her kids up gender fluid.

Im sorry but thats child abuse in my eyes. Kids have a hard enough time in school without being confused by their weird parents. Let kids be kids, and shove your PC genderist agenda up your arse.