11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

IN fairness, the only person who called him a bigot was himself!!

I was ironically calling out the elephant in the room. But you knew that already. You knew I wasn't calling myself a bigot. You knew that I was referring to others insinuating I was without having the balls to call me out on their misguided opinion of me

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I was ironically calling out the elephant in the room. But you knew that already. You knew I wasn't calling myself a bigot. You knew that I was referring to others insinuating I was without having the balls to call me out on their misguided opinion of me

I called you out on playing victim cards and not reading posts to which you replied, and highlighted the examples. You never challenged them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

From what I read it seemed you were debating the existence of sex.

Regardless, I'll still never get my head around this seemingly new disconnect between gender and sex. It seems only recently they have become non-interchangeable terms. Gender is sex, or can you explain to me the difference?

I'll have a look at the article you quoted tomorrow. I'm highly skeptical of the majority of the social "sciences", going as far to believe the term is a misnomer.

The exact quote was "boys are boys and girls are girls". Claiming this to be incorrect is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist.

From the second link I posted: "Sex typically refers to anatomy while "gender goes beyond biology," says Dr. Jason Rafferty, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Rhode Island, and lead author of the AAP's transgender policy.
- this for me pretty much sums it up. Psychology comes into play.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

You appear to have come into the argument late. The existence of male and female is not what I was describing as the original poster's "opinion; it was whether or not gender is defined purely by the physical characteristics at birth.

Please just clarify. If you were born with a vagina but think you are male, are you a woman or a man?

donkeykong5

Deleted User wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

You appear to have come into the argument late. The existence of male and female is not what I was describing as the original poster's "opinion; it was whether or not gender is defined purely by the physical characteristics at birth.

Please just clarify. If you were born with a vagina but think you are male, are you a woman or a man?

A woman.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Please just clarify. If you were born with a vagina but think you are male, are you a woman or a man?

Again from the link:
"Sex typically refers to anatomy while "gender goes beyond biology," says Dr. Jason Rafferty, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Rhode Island, and lead author of the AAP's transgender policy.
- this for me pretty much sums it up. Psychology comes into play.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-science-sex-gender.html

So the answer would be in terms of sex; a woman. In terms of gender, male.

sbsquarepants

BattleCorp wrote: »

A friend's daughter said she wanted to be a boy when she was about five. She insisted on it. Wanted to wear boys clothes, wanted to be called him etc. Her mother met her halfway and allowed her to wear boys clothes etc. but she didn't give in to the 'she's a boy' idea. She insisted that her daughter is a girl but is free to do boys things if she wanted.

My own daughter is the very same - she's 6, insists she's a boy. Same carry on, she doesn't like traditional girl toys or clothes or anything like that - it's all fine.

I tell her the very same thing as your friend, it's fine to be a girl who likes boy things, I don't mind buying her a pair of blue runners for example, but I draw the line well before hormones or surgery!

If she's still insisting at 16, then maybe there's an issue. Right now she's just a kid, being a kid and that's exactly what she should be.

Annasopra

sbsquarepants wrote: »

My own daughter is the very same - she's 6, insists she's a boy. Same carry on, she doesn't like traditional girl toys or clothes or anything like that - it's all fine.

I tell her the very same thing as your friend, it's fine to be a girl who likes boy things, I don't mind buying her a pair of blue runners for example, but I draw the line well before hormones or surgery!

If she's still insisting at 16, then maybe there's an issue. Right now she's just a kid, being a kid and that's exactly what she should be.

Again the peddling of lies that 6 year olds are getting surgery!

Sir Oxman

Zorya wrote: »

There is no need to normalise different sexualities for pre pubescent children - to do so is in its essence sexualisation of children. Hetero couples do not - unless they're a bit fcuked up - normalise their sexuality for their children because they don't put it in their face. People have sex privately, they don't make out heavily in front of their small kids or wear sexualised clothing or talk dirty or make innuendo or ape sex acts, or do anything at all really to draw their children's attention to their private sexual lives. Because it is not relevant for small children in any way to see or think about such matters.
And after that kids just gag to think of their parents having sex. What you are talking about is not how ''normalising'' works.

How do drag queens normalise butch gay Moms or demure gay Dads? How do they act as role models for anypne but a niche few?

Normalising gay Mammys and Daddys does not require drag queens which is essentially a fetish act, even if they don a floral gown and adopt the facsimile of a mumsy librarian. It surely does not represent the vast majority of gay parents. It is not a useful representation of an example of a homosexual / transgender way of life to present to small children. It's underlying cachet - indeed, raison d'etre - is queer sexuality and sex. That's cool. But not relevant for children.

This.

sbsquarepants

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again the peddling of lies that 6 year olds are getting surgery!

Settle down there Joey, I'm not peddling anything - I'm just saying my daughter is a bit of a tomboy!

Annasopra

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Settle down there Joey, I'm not peddling anything - I'm just saying my daughter is a bit of a tomboy!

Why mention surgery at all then?

Baggly

Mod

Let us all please remember to attack the post, not the poster. If someone makes a point, address the point.

Thanks

Zorya

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why mention surgery at all then?

Top US childhood gender expert Johana Olson Kennedy got funding last year to administer cross sex hormones to children from the age of 8.

That is not merely puberty blockers, that is catastrophic manipulation of a young body.

There have been multiple resignations from the Tavistock clinic in the UK due to senior medical personnel objecting to what is going on there.

Anyone who sneers at people expressing alarm at present day approaches to children with dysphoria issues, which in 70 to 90% of cases present with serious CO morbidities like autism and anxiety, is gaslighting, pure and simple.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The exact quote was "boys are boys and girls are girls". Claiming this to be incorrect is not the same as claiming it doesn't exist.

From the second link I posted: "Sex typically refers to anatomy while "gender goes beyond biology," says Dr. Jason Rafferty, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Rhode Island, and lead author of the AAP's transgender policy.
- this for me pretty much sums it up. Psychology comes into play.

It is correct. A boy is a male child. A male is defined as " an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female".

How can a boy thus be a female child?

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again from the link:
"Sex typically refers to anatomy while "gender goes beyond biology," says Dr. Jason Rafferty, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children's Hospital in Rhode Island, and lead author of the AAP's transgender policy.
- this for me pretty much sums it up. Psychology comes into play.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-science-sex-gender.html

So the answer would be in terms of sex; a woman. In terms of gender, male.

But this idea "that gender goes beyond biology" only began in the 70's and resulted due to feminist critical theory.

It's not at all scientific.

donaghs

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Again the peddling of lies that 6 year olds are getting surgery!

No, they weren't. Same simple answer, let them be kids and make the irreversible life altering decisions when they are older.

Why the ideological dogma that if a child says they are a different sex/gender that what they are assigned at birth, then this MUST be the new reality?

Seeing as your a forum mod, consider how many gay adults today may have have gender/identity issue growing up?

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But this idea "that gender goes beyond biology" only began in the 70's and resulted due to feminist critical theory.

It's not at all scientific.

It is a relatively new linguistic construct but I find it useful to have "sex" and "gender" as having different meanings to help discussion of these issues.

Some languages only have on word to describe sex/gender, so have to use context to make distinctions.

p1akuw47h5r3it

donaghs wrote: »

No, they weren't. Same simple answer, let them be kids and make the irreversible life altering decisions when they are older.

Why the ideological dogma that if a child says they are a different sex/gender that what they are assigned at birth, then this MUST be the new reality?

Seeing as your a forum mod, consider how many gay adults today may have have gender/identity issue growing up?



It is a relatively new linguistic construct but I find it useful to have "sex" and "gender" as having different meanings to help discussion of these issues.

Some languages only have on word to describe sex/gender, so have to use context to make distinctions.

Yes but my point is that there is nothing scientific about a linguistic construct. If I identify as female, how do you prove I identify as female? Because I could just be lying.

This is why, if gender and sex are not the same thing, there is nothing scientific about gender.

sbsquarepants

Jmsg wrote: »

It's well documented people who have plastic surgery are never satisfied. .

I don't think it is.

Some people..... maybe!

Wibbs

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But this idea "that gender goes beyond biology" only began in the 70's and resulted due to feminist critical theory.

It's not at all scientific.

and these things are often contradictory too. Feminist theory was but one smaller aspect of a much larger shift towards the nurture over nature view in sciences and the mainstream, even political realm. The nature/nurture debate has gone back and forth down the years, with proponents for both tending to dig heels in and go extreme. So on the one hand we have the biological reductive view that lays everything at the feet of nature, biology, evolution and latterly genetics, on the other we have the nurture and culture influences people far more and that humans are more of a "blank slate" creature. Both are needlessly simplistic. Interestingly both views tend to follow "political" viewpoints too, especially the politics of late. The "left" tend to favour the nurture side, the "right" nature. Also somewhat interestingly when evolution came out as a theory it heavily influenced and was referenced by both political extremes as Communism and Fascism.

But let's take nurture as the major influence. If this were the case Gay people would be far rarer as the culture/nurture around us from birth is overwhelmingly heterosexual and yet it doesn't "turn" Gay people Straight. Which in turn strongly suggests that a Straight kid isn't going to turn Gay being around Gay culture, even if said culture was the norm, which it isn't. I would personally suspect the culture would influence some folks in the middle of the range between Gay and Straight. IE Bisexual folks(who are remarkably unrepresented in most sexual studies and research. Going binary is easier and less "messy" I suppose) who could go either way depending on the culture and environment.

I'd also take actual Intersex people out of this debate. They're a separate category to otherwise biologically, physiologically and genetically normal people who present as Transexuals. Though if we take the position - which the nurture people won't, because it leads to uncomfortable questions for their nurture/culture position - that there exists broadly speaking a male and female brain(which leads to mind), it would then stand to reason that some people who are biologically male say, could have female brains because of genetic quirks and/or different hormone exposure in the womb. Which leads them to be essentially the brain and mind of one gender in the body of another. So Transexuals would be neurologically Intersex.

It could be a question of degree too. So at lower levels of being neurologically Intersex in the areas that broadly influences sexuality you would get Gay folks, at higher levels you would get Trans. There have been a few studies which showed certain parts of the brains of men who reported as "100%" Gay much more resemble Straight women, than Straight men. Similar was found in Gay women. Again sadly Bisexuals were left out of the mix. Link here and another link here.

The above would make far more sense than relying on psychological and cultural influences. This line of research if we could track these subtle differences could also lead to more definitive tests in the future, where Transexual individuals could be spotted and indeed helped earlier. Though I suspect it would still be difficult before puberty kicked in. Even in this thread you have folks who described themselves as being a bit more like their opposite sex when they were kids, but then puberty hit and that reversed, often strongly. So maybe the "male/female" brains are more fluid in some kids and going through the puberty and hormone flood of their physical sex shifts the brain/mind to their physical sex*.




*just going on personal observations down the years I've noted this far more in women. Real "tomboys" becoming girly girls after puberty. Whereas very feminine boys were nearly all Gay men in adulthood.

The Rape of Lucretia

DanDan6592 wrote: »

Yes but my point is that there is nothing scientific about a linguistic construct. If I identify as female, how do you prove I identify as female? Because I could just be lying.

This is why, if gender and sex are not the same thing, there is nothing scientific about gender.

Gender and sex being synonyms, effectively. Not all languages have a pair of words to try to force such a distinction.

In English, do women of female sex, who see themselves as trangender, still describe themselves as of female sex? Such as on their passport?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

But this idea "that gender goes beyond biology" only began in the 70's and resulted due to feminist critical theory.

It's not at all scientific.

Seriously...?? Any scientific research after the 70s is less admissible than "feminist critical theory"? Whatever the **** THAT'S supposed to mean...?!

Next time you ask me for a scientific definition of something, please also include the parameters and definitions of science.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

It is correct. A boy is a male child. A male is defined as " an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female".

How can a boy thus be a female child?

"A boy is a boy" and "a boy is a male child" are two different statements. Or is that "feminist creitical theory" as well?

(And if it is, then take it up with the doctors in the field: I'll take their word for it ahead of your conspiracy ramblings)

p1akuw47h5r3it

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Gender and sex being synonyms, effectively. Not all languages have a pair of words to try to force such a distinction.

In English, do women of female sex, who see themselves as trangender, still describe themselves as of female sex? Such as on their passport?

I understand the distinction that is currently being made. You can be born female but just "feel" male. Thus you're sex is female but you would consider your gender to be male.

My question is how do you prove a person identifies as male? You can ask and they can lie.

If it's an unprovable question, it is not a scientific question and thus the whole issue of identifying as a certain gender becomes unscientific.

Wibbs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously...?? Any scientific research after the 70s is less admissible than "feminist critical theory"? Whatever the **** THAT'S supposed to mean...?!

Next time you ask me for a scientific definition of something, please also include the parameters and definitions of science.

Though I would very much agree that "feminist critical theory" is far too narrow a focus in what is a much wider influence of the shift in the nature/nurture debate, it is true to say that the sciences have always been influenced to one degree or other by the larger cultural and political background of the time. Depends on the branch of the sciences too. The hard sciences tend to be much less affected. So no matter what the cultural background over time and geography E=MC2 remains constant(no pun) and provable.

Wibbs

DanDan6592 wrote: »

If it's an unprovable question, it is not a scientific question and thus the whole issue of identifying as a certain gender becomes unscientific.

Not necessarily DD. As I noted above the brain scans of Gay people show definite differences in some areas of the brain. IE Gay men have brains that more resemble Straight women and Gay women have brains that more resemble Straight men. With more research, better science and testing these could become definitive. I strongly suspect Transexual brains will show even more differences and more commonalities with the sex they feel themselves to be. I can see such research being resisted though. For good and bad reasons.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seriously...?? Any scientific research after the 70s is less admissible than "feminist critical theory"? Whatever the **** THAT'S supposed to mean...?!

Next time you ask me for a scientific definition of something, please also include the parameters and definitions of science.



"A boy is a boy" and "a boy is a male child" are two different statements. Or is that "feminist creitical theory" as well?

(And if it is, then take it up with the doctors in the field: I'll take their word for it ahead of your conspiracy ramblings)

OK chill out a bit!

Not not any science, the social sciences. There are huge issues with it and this is acknowledged by those in the field. It's become extremely politicised.
Maybe read my other responses after the one you quote and it might clarify what I mean. If one can simply identify as a different gender, how do you show or prove they are telling the truth?

As Wibbs eluded to earlier, if there are distinct differences in male and female brains, this could potentially be one way. But my understanding is the science is unclear about that.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Wibbs wrote: »

Not necessarily DD. As I noted above the brain scans of Gay people show definite differences in some areas of the brain. IE Gay men have brains that more resemble Straight women and Gay women have brains that more resemble Straight men. With more research, better science and testing these could become definitive. I strongly suspect Transexual brains will show even more differences and more commonalities with the sex they feel themselves to be. I can see such research being resisted though. For good and bad reasons.

OK fair enough. But would this not require a changing in the definition of gender, as cultural and society would no longer be an influence, it'd be mere biology?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

OK chill out a bit!

Not not any science, the social sciences. There are huge issues with it and this is acknowledged by those in the field. It's become extremely politicised.
Maybe read my other responses after the one you quote and it might clarify what I mean. If one can simply identify as a different gender, how do you show or prove they are telling the truth?

As Wibbs eluded to earlier, if there are distinct differences in male and female brains, this could potentially be one way. But my understanding is the science is unclear about that.

Well, again, if you ask me to present scientific evidence to prove a point, it's not really fair to then move the goalposts after I do so.

Wibbs wrote: »

Though I would very much agree that "feminist critical theory" is far too narrow a focus in what is a much wider influence of the shift in the nature/nurture debate, it is true to say that the sciences have always been influenced to one degree or other by the larger cultural and political background of the time. Depends on the branch of the sciences too. The hard sciences tend to be much less affected. So no matter what the cultural background over time and geography E=MC2 remains constant(no pun) and provable.

Is it? I'd argue that the specific job of science to ignore said influences and use only evidence and figures garnered through research. Whether or not it achieves this is another question, but specifically to the question I was asked, I see no reason to suspect that it hasn't.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Wibbs wrote: »

Not necessarily DD. As I noted above the brain scans of Gay people show definite differences in some areas of the brain. IE Gay men have brains that more resemble Straight women and Gay women have brains that more resemble Straight men. With more research, better science and testing these could become definitive. I strongly suspect Transexual brains will show even more differences and more commonalities with the sex they feel themselves to be. I can see such research being resisted though. For good and bad reasons.

OK fair enough. But would this not require a changing in the definition of gender, as cultural and society would no longer be an influence, it'd be mere biology?

Wibbs

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Is it? I'd argue that the specific job of science to ignore said influences and use only evidence and figures garnered through research. Whether or not it achieves this is another question, but specifically to the question I was asked, I see no reason to suspect that it hasn't.

Oh its job is to ignore influences, but that can fail and at different stages of research too, or even what research gets fostered and what doesn't. Never mind how the wider culture interprets the scientific research. The history of science is full of that stuff and each generation and culture of scientists tends to hold the two concepts of science always moves forward, while also reckoning they've mostly nailed it. But to take your question(which is a tad black and white, just like the post you were responding to): The social sciences which this debate is largely discussed within has had quite a bit of influential shifts over the last 30 years and particularly since the 90's. Like I said the nature/nurture dynamic has most definitely shifted much more towards the nurture end and like I said often in contradictory ways. This was influenced by a wider philosophy/politic that came out of the 60's and 70's. It's been described as "post modernism" but I'd see that as overly simplistic. In any event that influence is there, even to the degree where a government medical body like our own HSE states that it is medically possible to change one's gender. Which is a provable medical and scientific falsehood, yet there is is in black and white, evidently supported by highly trained doctors and has been oft quoted on threads of this nature here as "scientific" backing for their position.

DanDan6592 wrote: »

OK fair enough. But would this not require a changing in the definition of gender, as cultural and society would no longer be an influence, it'd be mere biology?

It can be both, though I would strongly suspect biology in the wider sense is by far the bigger influence in this particular case. It doesn't require any changes in definition either. Well so long as we ignore the myriad self declared definitions within some of the more extreme ends of identity politics. That has become a bit of a farce. IE Facebook having a couple of dozen "genders". If someone wants to identify as "two spirit" or "bi queer curious" or whatever, they can go right ahead, but it's not exactly scientific, or basic common sense. It's pandering to a current gra for self identification along individualistic lines.

You can break it down to this: Three genders; male, female, intersex. Three sexualities; Gay, Straight, Bisexual(Asexuality a possible fourth, though Asexual folks will tend to identify more strongly with one of the previous three). Every one of the self identity politics "definitions" will comfortably fit within those above six categories.

p1akuw47h5r3it

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Well, again, if you ask me to present scientific evidence to prove a point, it's not really fair to then move the goalposts after I do so.

My point about Critical feminist theory was the moving of the goalposts was done by these people, creating a difference between sex and gender. Sex is biological whereas gender is seemingly influenced by culture and society as opposed to biology.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Is it? I'd argue that the specific job of science to ignore said influences and use only evidence and figures garnered through research. Whether or not it achieves this is another question, but specifically to the question I was asked, I see no reason to suspect that it hasn't.

Your research doesn't show how you prove how one identifies is actually how they identify though.

And it is an important question in regard to the way certain aspects of (American society, really) is going.