Current Events > New research shows a vast majority of cis people won't date trans people

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9
Russman 06/21/18 4:07:41 PM #101:	COVxy posted... Russman posted... As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative. As a biomedical engineer you are not nearly qualified to make such definitive claims. Especially under such ambiguous category labels. Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are. --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903708376] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative.</quote> As a biomedical engineer you are not nearly qualified to make such definitive claims. Especially under such ambiguous category labels.</quote> Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/21/18 4:08:00 PM #102:	nemu posted... Transwomen are biological males living as women, either with or without cosmetic surgery. I will gladly say they they are female and call them women, as that is polite, but that does not change the fact that they are not "real women." There is nothing offensive at all about that. I think it's good that you are up front about your feelings. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903708393] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>nemu posted...</cite> <quote>Transwomen are biological males living as women, either with or without cosmetic surgery. I will gladly say they they are female and call them women, as that is polite, but that does not change the fact that they are not "real women." There is nothing offensive at all about that.</quote> I think it's good that you are up front about your feelings.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:08:36 PM #103:	gunplagirl posted... Conception616 posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative. Prove it. Post your diploma and a copy of your pay stub. Nah Im not gonna. Just like you dont cite any of the made up facts you state. I'm actually queen of three galaxies, and makes stupid claim and that's why I'm right. I'm being sarcastic and mocking you because you aren't a bioengineer. No I 100% am. However, nothing youve said in this topic has been even remotely true. FedEx has a bioengineer field now? https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76735858 Fucking scorched I was lying in that topic and not this one. --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903708437] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative.</quote> Prove it. Post your diploma and a copy of your pay stub.</quote> Nah Im not gonna. Just like you dont cite any of the made up facts you state.</quote> I'm actually queen of three galaxies, and makes stupid claim and that's why I'm right. I'm being sarcastic and mocking you because you aren't a bioengineer.</quote> No I 100% am. However, nothing youve said in this topic has been even remotely true.</quote> FedEx has a bioengineer field now? https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76735858</quote> Fucking scorched</quote> I was lying in that topic and not this one.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/21/18 4:08:43 PM #104:	Russman posted... Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are. If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903708445] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are.</quote> If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Slayerblade11 06/21/18 4:08:45 PM #105:	Would be too awkward and weird for most straight people <cite>Slayerblade11 posted [p:903708448] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>Would be too awkward and weird for most straight people</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kanaya413 06/21/18 4:09:21 PM #106:	Cis or trans man is fine with me I even hear we might could have a baby together with some weird science stuff --- Official Secretary of Kyogre's Cascade!!! FC: 5086-1980-2580 IGN: Vivi TSV 4077 Silent Chexmix: "Toxapex is Trump's wall in pixel form." <cite>Kanaya413 posted [p:903708488] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>Cis or trans man is fine with me I even hear we might could have a baby together with some weird science stuff</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
K181 06/21/18 4:11:22 PM #107:	gunplagirl posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic. Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go? I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out. Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?" If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference. Yet again, we are in an era where we are rapidly recognizing gender and sexual diversity that just a decade ago would've been essentially ignored, yet the idea of cis-sexuality of either the homosexual or heterosexual variant immediately kills the conversation? --- Irregardless, for all intensive purposes, I could care less. <cite>K181 posted [p:903708613] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.</quote> Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?</quote> I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.</quote> Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"</quote> If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.</quote> Yet again, we are in an era where we are rapidly recognizing gender and sexual diversity that just a decade ago would've been essentially ignored, yet the idea of cis-sexuality of either the homosexual or heterosexual variant immediately kills the conversation?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Conception616 06/21/18 4:11:25 PM #108:	https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet? --- Dakota Kai's husband <cite>Conception616 posted [p:903708618] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MrPeppers 06/21/18 4:11:26 PM #109:	gunplagirl posted... Kaiganeer posted... gunplagirl posted... Which trans women are trans women and women born biologically female are two different things, the latter being a "real" woman and the former being someone who transitioned into it you understand this, don't be daft "Biologically female" is a fucking misnomer. 1) read a biology textbook that's beyond middle school level 2) make sure it's from the last 20 years And incidentally, "real" and "biological" don't have to 100% match because you're still ignoring intersex people in the process. Please explain. Please dont try to pass this off as the <0.01% of the population that has genetic mismatching. Anomalies are not proof that biological gender is a misnomer. --- https://imgur.com/SGkkbF0 <cite>MrPeppers posted [p:903708619] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Kaiganeer posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Which trans women are</quote> trans women and women born biologically female are two different things, the latter being a "real" woman and the former being someone who transitioned into it you understand this, don't be daft</quote> "Biologically female" is a fucking misnomer. 1) read a biology textbook that's beyond middle school level 2) make sure it's from the last 20 years And incidentally, "real" and "biological" don't have to 100% match because you're still ignoring intersex people in the process.</quote> Please explain. Please dont try to pass this off as the <0.01% of the population that has genetic mismatching. Anomalies are not proof that biological gender is a misnomer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LockeMonster 06/21/18 4:12:03 PM #110:	gunplagirl posted... Sources? And have you read any of the articles on how trans numbers are underreported? I got it wrong that it was for the world for gender since the world population one has actually not been documented at all. But the US is relatively very progressive in terms of this, so statistics wise this is the best we have. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/30/484253324/1-4-million-adults-identify-as-transgender-in-america-study-says https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-percentage-of-the-world-population-have-red-hair.html It doesn't matter what I have read or not. You don't get to make up statistics because it's underreported. As it stands, it's about a 2-3x difference. I have no doubt there's probably more, but touting it as a valid statistics is disingenuous. --- "Scranton is great, but New York is like Scranton on acid. No, on speed. Nah. On steroids." FC: 3282-3258-0224 <cite>LockeMonster posted [p:903708661] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Sources? And have you read any of the articles on how trans numbers are underreported?</quote> I got it wrong that it was for the world for gender since the world population one has actually not been documented at all. But the US is relatively very progressive in terms of this, so statistics wise this is the best we have. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/30/484253324/1-4-million-adults-identify-as-transgender-in-america-study-says https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-percentage-of-the-world-population-have-red-hair.html It doesn't matter what I have read or not. You don't get to make up statistics because it's underreported. As it stands, it's about a 2-3x difference. I have no doubt there's probably more, but touting it as a valid statistics is disingenuous.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
vocedelmorte 06/21/18 4:12:11 PM #111:	DifferentialEquation posted... People are allowed to have preferences. There's no problem with this. <cite>vocedelmorte posted [p:903708668] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>DifferentialEquation posted...</cite> <quote>People are allowed to have preferences. There's no problem with this.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:12:18 PM #112:	nemu posted... gunplagirl posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic. Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go? I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out. Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?" If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference. It's like you're trying to change reality. Transwomen are biological males living as women, either with or without cosmetic surgery. I will gladly say they they are female and call them women, as that is polite, but that does not change the fact that they are not "real women." There is nothing offensive at all about that. 1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth 2) it ignores intersex people 3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery 4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities 5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc. 6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903708672] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>nemu posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.</quote> Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?</quote> I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.</quote> Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"</quote> If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.</quote> It's like you're trying to change reality. Transwomen are biological males living as women, either with or without cosmetic surgery. I will gladly say they they are female and call them women, as that is polite, but that does not change the fact that they are not "real women." There is nothing offensive at all about that.</quote> 1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth 2) it ignores intersex people 3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery 4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities 5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc. 6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Conception616 06/21/18 4:12:52 PM #113:	Conception616 posted... https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet? Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer? --- Dakota Kai's husband <cite>Conception616 posted [p:903708700] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote>https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet?</quote> Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Balla4life0526 06/21/18 4:13:44 PM #114:	gunplagirl posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic. Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go? I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out. Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?" If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference. when John jones the Martian man hunter uses his powers to shapeshift into a human, he isnt actually human. hes still biologically an alien from mars <cite>Balla4life0526 posted [p:903708739] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.</quote> Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?</quote> I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.</quote> Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"</quote> If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.</quote> when John jones the Martian man hunter uses his powers to shapeshift into a human, he isnt actually human. hes still biologically an alien from mars</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/21/18 4:14:16 PM #115:	K181 posted... gunplagirl posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic. Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go? I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out. Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?" If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference. Yet again, we are in an era where we are rapidly recognizing gender and sexual diversity that just a decade ago would've been essentially ignored, yet the idea of cis-sexuality of either the homosexual or heterosexual variant immediately kills the conversation? So you think that the brain organizes prenatally to either prefer cis or trans people? Let's say for rodents or any other nonhuman animal, how would that work exactly? Lol. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903708777] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.</quote> Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?</quote> I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.</quote> Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"</quote> If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.</quote> Yet again, we are in an era where we are rapidly recognizing gender and sexual diversity that just a decade ago would've been essentially ignored, yet the idea of cis-sexuality of either the homosexual or heterosexual variant immediately kills the conversation?</quote> So you think that the brain organizes prenatally to either prefer cis or trans people? Let's say for rodents or any other nonhuman animal, how would that work exactly? Lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hicks233 06/21/18 4:14:17 PM #116:	voldothegr8 posted... In other news, the sun is hot And water is wet. --- http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/index.php?boardid=9458 So says Mr. Stewart. <cite>Hicks233 posted [p:903708778] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>voldothegr8 posted...</cite> <quote>In other news, the sun is hot</quote> And water is wet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DirkDiggles 06/21/18 4:14:33 PM #117:	Conception616 posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative. Prove it. Post your diploma and a copy of your pay stub. Nah Im not gonna. Just like you dont cite any of the made up facts you state. I'm actually queen of three galaxies, and makes stupid claim and that's why I'm right. I'm being sarcastic and mocking you because you aren't a bioengineer. No I 100% am. However, nothing youve said in this topic has been even remotely true. FedEx has a bioengineer field now? https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76735858 lol --- https://imgtc.com/i/5CTKeaL.jpg https://imgtc.com/i/G9w39yE.gif <cite>DirkDiggles posted [p:903708794] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative.</quote> Prove it. Post your diploma and a copy of your pay stub.</quote> Nah Im not gonna. Just like you dont cite any of the made up facts you state.</quote> I'm actually queen of three galaxies, and makes stupid claim and that's why I'm right. I'm being sarcastic and mocking you because you aren't a bioengineer.</quote> No I 100% am. However, nothing youve said in this topic has been even remotely true.</quote> FedEx has a bioengineer field now? https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76735858</quote> lol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
HiddenLurker 06/21/18 4:15:20 PM #118:	Not surprising really. Dating with intent to get married is different then lust. Not to knock on families that adopt but most married people that want children prefer their own biological children which a trans person cannot offer. --- [Insert tired meme here] <cite>HiddenLurker posted [p:903708854] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>Not surprising really. Dating with intent to get married is different then lust. Not to knock on families that adopt but most married people that want children prefer their own biological children which a trans person cannot offer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:15:52 PM #119:	LockeMonster posted... gunplagirl posted... Sources? And have you read any of the articles on how trans numbers are underreported? I got it wrong that it was for the world for gender since the world population one has actually not been documented at all. But the US is relatively very progressive in terms of this, so statistics wise this is the best we have. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/30/484253324/1-4-million-adults-identify-as-transgender-in-america-study-says https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-percentage-of-the-world-population-have-red-hair.html It doesn't matter what I have read or not. You don't get to make up statistics because it's underreported. As it stands, it's about a 2-3x difference. I have no doubt there's probably more, but touting it as a valid statistics is disingenuous. Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are. --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903708891] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>LockeMonster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Sources? And have you read any of the articles on how trans numbers are underreported?</quote> I got it wrong that it was for the world for gender since the world population one has actually not been documented at all. But the US is relatively very progressive in terms of this, so statistics wise this is the best we have. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/30/484253324/1-4-million-adults-identify-as-transgender-in-america-study-says https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-percentage-of-the-world-population-have-red-hair.html It doesn't matter what I have read or not. You don't get to make up statistics because it's underreported. As it stands, it's about a 2-3x difference. I have no doubt there's probably more, but touting it as a valid statistics is disingenuous.</quote> Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:16:15 PM #120:	COVxy posted... Russman posted... Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are. If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol. Here you go mr. phd in a scientific field --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903708918] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are.</quote> If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol.</quote> Here you go mr. phd in a scientific field </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Esrac 06/21/18 4:16:43 PM #121:	gunplagirl posted... LockeMonster posted... gunplagirl posted... The population of trans people globally is at the same level as the number of natural redheads in the world. Do you have a source for this? 1%+ of the global population has gender dysphoria 1-2% of the global population has naturally red hair You'd have to find a source for each but they're pretty documented by this point. The only numbers I could find with a Google search on those suggested only about 0.5% of the population are trans and 1 - 2% of people have natural red hair (2-6% among western European descendants). --- http://steamcommunity.com/id/Esrac/wishlist/ <cite>Esrac posted [p:903708952] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LockeMonster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>The population of trans people globally is at the same level as the number of natural redheads in the world.</quote> Do you have a source for this?</quote> 1%+ of the global population has gender dysphoria 1-2% of the global population has naturally red hair You'd have to find a source for each but they're pretty documented by this point.</quote> The only numbers I could find with a Google search on those suggested only about 0.5% of the population are trans and 1 - 2% of people have natural red hair (2-6% among western European descendants).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:17:01 PM #122:	Balla4life0526 posted... gunplagirl posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... K181 posted... COVxy posted... The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic. Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go? I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out. Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?" If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference. when John jones the Martian man hunter uses his powers to shapeshift into a human, he isnt actually human. hes still biologically an alien from mars Trans people are aliens? That explains my growing urge to blow up the white house and then get killed by Will Smith. I think that's the same movie, right? --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903708967] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Balla4life0526 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>K181 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote>The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.</quote> Again... we're at the point where people are rightfully arguing for respect for sexual preferences and gender identies, and yet the notion that there could be a sexual preference for cisgendered men or women is a no go?</quote> I mean, that doesn't make much sense. It's like saying I'm sapiosexual or whatever those made up orientations are. If you're in the realm of making up biologically implausible sexual orientations to justify your own lack of acceptance, you've made a wrong turn. At least simply admit that you don't see them as truly their identified gender and the thought of them as their pretransition state freaks you out.</quote> Yeah, you're just looking for things to be upset at this point if your rational is that it's "biologically implausible" to have a sexual orientation more exclusionary than your own or inventing states of mind for people that have them. You're attracted to trans and cis people? Good for you. You think that there's zero possible reason that someone could be only attracted to cis people? Quit being so close minded. I can safely say that there isn't a cisgendered guy that attacts me. Does that make me a homophobe? If yes, that's a dumb take. If no, how's that different if you changed "cis" with "trans?"</quote> If you're straight then you aren't into men. If you are straight you're into women. Trans women are women. If you exclude all trans women from your dating pool it's because you don't consider them women. That's the difference.</quote> when John jones the Martian man hunter uses his powers to shapeshift into a human, he isnt actually human. hes still biologically an alien from mars</quote> Trans people are aliens? That explains my growing urge to blow up the white house and then get killed by Will Smith. I think that's the same movie, right?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 06/21/18 4:17:08 PM #123:	Conception616 posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative. Prove it. Post your diploma and a copy of your pay stub. Nah Im not gonna. Just like you dont cite any of the made up facts you state. I'm actually queen of three galaxies, and makes stupid claim and that's why I'm right. I'm being sarcastic and mocking you because you aren't a bioengineer. No I 100% am. However, nothing youve said in this topic has been even remotely true. FedEx has a bioengineer field now? https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76735858 Lololol --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:903708976] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>As a biomedical engineer, I can say with certainty that mtfs are not real women (on the basis of actual science). This shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone, but those who claim they are, are lying to push an identity politics narrative.</quote> Prove it. Post your diploma and a copy of your pay stub.</quote> Nah Im not gonna. Just like you dont cite any of the made up facts you state.</quote> I'm actually queen of three galaxies, and makes stupid claim and that's why I'm right. I'm being sarcastic and mocking you because you aren't a bioengineer.</quote> No I 100% am. However, nothing youve said in this topic has been even remotely true.</quote> FedEx has a bioengineer field now? https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76735858</quote> Lololol</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Vyrulisse 06/21/18 4:17:18 PM #124:	If you got nice legs and thick thighs I'm all in no matter what you are --- https://imgur.com/6VeX04D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfFDTPPlaM <cite>Vyrulisse posted [p:903708986] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>If you got nice legs and thick thighs I'm all in no matter what you are</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thelovefist 06/21/18 4:17:24 PM #125:	Most people aren't homosexual so this isn't a surprise --- "honestly the worst thing about Shaun King is how pro-cop he is" - averagejoel <cite>thelovefist posted [p:903708988] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>Most people aren't homosexual so this isn't a surprise</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/21/18 4:17:56 PM #126:	Russman posted... COVxy posted... Russman posted... Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are. If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol. Here you go mr. phd in a scientific field What an amazing scientific reference, a textbook, and a grade school textbook at that! lol. Not that what is in that that page has much to do with what we're discussing anyway lol. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903709025] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are.</quote> If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol.</quote> Here you go mr. phd in a scientific field </quote> What an amazing scientific reference, a textbook, and a grade school textbook at that! lol. Not that what is in that that page has much to do with what we're discussing anyway lol.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:20:07 PM #127:	COVxy posted... Russman posted... COVxy posted... Russman posted... Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are. If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol. Here you go mr. phd in a scientific field What an amazing scientific reference, a textbook, and a grade school textbook at that! lol. Not that what is in that that page has much to do with what we're discussing anyway lol. Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because ~~its a universally accepted scientific fact.~~ --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903709143] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Im not making the claim. Im telling the misinformed what the actual scientific facts are.</quote> If you say so, mr. 'scientific facts' lol.</quote> Here you go mr. phd in a scientific field </quote> What an amazing scientific reference, a textbook, and a grade school textbook at that! lol. Not that what is in that that page has much to do with what we're discussing anyway lol.</quote> Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LockeMonster 06/21/18 4:20:45 PM #128:	gunplagirl posted... Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are. I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers. --- "Scranton is great, but New York is like Scranton on acid. No, on speed. Nah. On steroids." FC: 3282-3258-0224 <cite>LockeMonster posted [p:903709176] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are.</quote> I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:21:29 PM #129:	Conception616 posted... Conception616 posted... https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet? Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer? I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer. --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903709224] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote>https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet?</quote> Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer?</quote> I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Conception616 06/21/18 4:23:20 PM #130:	Russman posted... Conception616 posted... Conception616 posted... https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet? Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer? I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer. I quoted a different topic. So you are a pathological liar then? Somehow, I would think bioengineers would be far too busy to shitpost on GF. --- Dakota Kai's husband <cite>Conception616 posted [p:903709359] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote>https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet?</quote> Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer?</quote> I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer.</quote> I quoted a different topic. So you are a pathological liar then? Somehow, I would think bioengineers would be far too busy to shitpost on GF.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
COVxy 06/21/18 4:23:50 PM #131:	Russman posted... Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it. --- =E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])] <cite>COVxy posted [p:903709391] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. </quote> What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:24:25 PM #132:	LockeMonster posted... gunplagirl posted... Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are. I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers. I don't have enough O characters in this post so I'll have to use scientific notation Wh o^4224563336789985446722 sh --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709436] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>LockeMonster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are.</quote> I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers.</quote> I don't have enough O characters in this post so I'll have to use scientific notation Wh o^4224563336789985446722 sh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:25:01 PM #133:	Conception616 posted... Russman posted... Conception616 posted... Conception616 posted... https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet? Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer? I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer. I quoted a different topic. So you are a pathological liar then? Somehow, I would think bioengineers would be far too busy to shitpost on GF. I am not a pathological liar. I simply say what I think is best. --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903709476] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote>https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet?</quote> Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer?</quote> I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer.</quote> I quoted a different topic. So you are a pathological liar then? Somehow, I would think bioengineers would be far too busy to shitpost on GF.</quote> I am not a pathological liar. I simply say what I think is best.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:25:20 PM #134:	COVxy posted... Russman posted... Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it. insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc. --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709499] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. </quote> What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.</quote> insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 06/21/18 4:25:40 PM #135:	RE_expert44 posted... Sayoria posted... That's fine. Weeds out the assholes. I want a real man, not some asshole like that. All I want is a real woman. I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. Shrug catboy0_0 posted... dang, sayoria lit a fire here It's my specialty. --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:903709524] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>RE_expert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>That's fine. Weeds out the assholes. I want a real man, not some asshole like that.</quote> All I want is a real woman.</quote> I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. Shrug <cite>catboy0_0 posted...</cite> <quote>dang, sayoria lit a fire here</quote> It's my specialty.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:25:57 PM #136:	Russman posted... Conception616 posted... Russman posted... Conception616 posted... Conception616 posted... https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet? Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer? I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer. I quoted a different topic. So you are a pathological liar then? Somehow, I would think bioengineers would be far too busy to shitpost on GF. I am not a pathological liar. I simply say what I think is best. Richard Nixon voice: "I am not a pathological liar." --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709542] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Conception616 posted...</cite> <quote>https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/76732554 @Russman Did you make it to head fry cook yet?</quote> Upon further reading, you claim to be too young to be a bartender. So, you are an under 20 bioengineer?</quote> I already said I was lying in that topic. This one I am telling the truth in. I am a 25 yo biomedical engineer.</quote> I quoted a different topic. So you are a pathological liar then? Somehow, I would think bioengineers would be far too busy to shitpost on GF.</quote> I am not a pathological liar. I simply say what I think is best.</quote> Richard Nixon voice: "I am not a pathological liar."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
nemu 06/21/18 4:26:24 PM #137:	gunplagirl posted... 1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth 2) it ignores intersex people 3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery 4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities 5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc. 6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous. Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others. <cite>nemu posted [p:903709572] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote> 1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth 2) it ignores intersex people 3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery 4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities 5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc. 6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption</quote> It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous. Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:26:34 PM #138:	COVxy posted... Russman posted... Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it. It says right there that sex is determined by sex chromosomes. Literally the first sentence. How are you a PhD student? --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903709584] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. </quote> What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.</quote> It says right there that sex is determined by sex chromosomes. Literally the first sentence. How are you a PhD student?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Carlbertomfg 06/21/18 4:26:34 PM #139:	I would date one either. I'd marry that fine broad. --- TOPIC CRUSHER <cite>Carlbertomfg posted [p:903709585] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>I would date one either. I'd marry that fine broad.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
P4wn4g3 06/21/18 4:26:49 PM #140:	Dayum @RE_expert44 banged @Sayoria? Edit: Sayoria posted... I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. Shrug --- Hive Mind of Dark Aether, the unofficial Metroid Social Private board. https://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/851-dark-aether <cite>P4wn4g3 posted [p:903709595] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>Dayum @RE_expert44 banged @Sayoria? Edit: <cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. Shrug</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:27:33 PM #141:	gunplagirl posted... COVxy posted... Russman posted... Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it. insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc. insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903709644] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. </quote> What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.</quote> insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc.</quote> insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:27:43 PM #142:	Sayoria posted... RE_expert44 posted... Sayoria posted... That's fine. Weeds out the assholes. I want a real man, not some asshole like that. All I want is a real woman. I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. Shrug catboy0_0 posted... dang, sayoria lit a fire here It's my specialty. You don't put the bi in biological but you put the cal f in biological female because word play and you're thicc --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709657] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote><cite>RE_expert44 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sayoria posted...</cite> <quote>That's fine. Weeds out the assholes. I want a real man, not some asshole like that.</quote> All I want is a real woman.</quote> I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. Shrug <cite>catboy0_0 posted...</cite> <quote>dang, sayoria lit a fire here</quote> It's my specialty.</quote> You don't put the bi in biological but you put the cal f in biological female because word play and you're thicc</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sayoria 06/21/18 4:28:03 PM #143:	P4wn4g3 posted... Dayum @RE_expert44 banged @Sayoria? My index finger does a better job. --- Japanese Crack: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5pzggr <cite>Sayoria posted [p:903709677] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>P4wn4g3 posted...</cite> <quote>Dayum @RE_expert44 banged @Sayoria?</quote> My index finger does a better job.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:28:33 PM #144:	Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... COVxy posted... Russman posted... Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it. insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc. insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible Human chimeras have been recorded. laughs* some bioengineer you are. --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709703] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. </quote> What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.</quote> insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc.</quote> insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible</quote> Human chimeras have been recorded. laughs* some bioengineer you are.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
LockeMonster 06/21/18 4:28:57 PM #145:	gunplagirl posted... LockeMonster posted... gunplagirl posted... Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are. I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers. I don't have enough O characters in this post so I'll have to use scientific notation Wh o^4224563336789985446722 sh Look, if you want to make a point, be an adult and be clear about it. Nothing I've said is wrong. There's also nothing wrong in correcting someone if they have incorrect numbers. I understand what your overall point is but you kept saying they're equal when they're not. --- "Scranton is great, but New York is like Scranton on acid. No, on speed. Nah. On steroids." FC: 3282-3258-0224 <cite>LockeMonster posted [p:903709727] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LockeMonster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are.</quote> I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers.</quote> I don't have enough O characters in this post so I'll have to use scientific notation Wh o^4224563336789985446722 sh</quote> Look, if you want to make a point, be an adult and be clear about it. Nothing I've said is wrong. There's also nothing wrong in correcting someone if they have incorrect numbers. I understand what your overall point is but you kept saying they're equal when they're not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ApathyBear 06/21/18 4:31:24 PM #146:	Well duh --- MacadamianNut3 reverse alt <cite>ApathyBear posted [p:903709856] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote>Well duh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:32:30 PM #147:	nemu posted... gunplagirl posted... 1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth 2) it ignores intersex people 3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery 4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities 5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc. 6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous. Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others. It adds nuance. No, I'm not saying intersex people are a new sex. I'm saying they'd still have to fit somewhere in the spectrum between male and female. And guess what? That means that xxy people would be classified as either male or female. And even then there's some who might have androgen sensitivity and never develop a penis. It adds nuance and that's precisely why it gets brought up, to demonstrate that "xx is girl xy is boy" is not some universal truth and that all people are only one are the other, it's that there's far more configurations that fit under both or either. --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709925] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>nemu posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote> 1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth 2) it ignores intersex people 3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery 4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities 5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc. 6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption</quote> It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous. Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.</quote> It adds nuance. No, I'm not saying intersex people are a new sex. I'm saying they'd still have to fit somewhere in the spectrum between male and female. And guess what? That means that xxy people would be classified as either male or female. And even then there's some who might have androgen sensitivity and never develop a penis. It adds nuance and that's precisely why it gets brought up, to demonstrate that "xx is girl xy is boy" is not some universal truth and that all people are only one are the other, it's that there's far more configurations that fit under both or either.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
gunplagirl 06/21/18 4:33:12 PM #148:	LockeMonster posted... gunplagirl posted... LockeMonster posted... gunplagirl posted... Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are. I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers. I don't have enough O characters in this post so I'll have to use scientific notation Wh o^4224563336789985446722 sh Look, if you want to make a point, be an adult and be clear about it. Nothing I've said is wrong. There's also nothing wrong in correcting someone if they have incorrect numbers. I understand what your overall point is but you kept saying they're equal when they're not. So do several million people not have any statistical merit or do they? --- Pew pew! <cite>gunplagirl posted [p:903709963] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>LockeMonster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>LockeMonster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote>Okay. Now read what you wrote, and then realize you're not actually disproving anything I said but instead are arguing "oh, 2 million and 4 million people are totally different" when the entire point of this little roundabout was to not ignore groups in the population when trying to make some universal 100% catch all claim. Which you did and still are.</quote> I got your point, I was also trying to correct you since you're wrong. Even 1% vs 2% of the population is 70 million fucking people. You were touting wrong numbers and I corrected you after I asked for you to show me sources to these "well documented" numbers.</quote> I don't have enough O characters in this post so I'll have to use scientific notation Wh o^4224563336789985446722 sh</quote> Look, if you want to make a point, be an adult and be clear about it. Nothing I've said is wrong. There's also nothing wrong in correcting someone if they have incorrect numbers. I understand what your overall point is but you kept saying they're equal when they're not.</quote> So do several million people not have any statistical merit or do they?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Metro2 06/21/18 4:33:32 PM #149:	Vyrulisse posted... If you got nice legs and thick thighs I'm all in no matter what you are https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpcmfjFN8OI" data-time=" <cite>Metro2 posted [p:903709975] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>Vyrulisse posted...</cite> <quote>If you got nice legs and thick thighs I'm all in no matter what you are</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpcmfjFN8OI" data-time="</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Russman 06/21/18 4:34:05 PM #150:	gunplagirl posted... Russman posted... gunplagirl posted... COVxy posted... Russman posted... Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it. insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc. insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible Human chimeras have been recorded. laughs* some bioengineer you are. Not a single human chimera has been able to have both sexes. Unlike the lab rats you are citing. If you were honest and not merely pushing a narrative, you would know that human chimeras are from blood transfusions or absorbing a dead twin fetus. Neither of which would lead to a transgender. --- Your name is Russman! Russ-man! <cite>Russman posted [p:903710019] in New resear... [t:76736840]...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote><cite>gunplagirl posted...</cite> <quote><cite>COVxy posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Russman posted...</cite> <quote>Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact. </quote> What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics. Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.</quote> insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc.</quote> insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible</quote> Human chimeras have been recorded. laughs* some bioengineer you are.</quote> Not a single human chimera has been able to have both sexes. Unlike the lab rats you are citing. If you were honest and not merely pushing a narrative, you would know that human chimeras are from blood transfusions or absorbing a dead twin fetus. Neither of which would lead to a transgender.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9

Current Events > New research shows a vast majority of cis people won't date trans people (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > New research shows a vast majority of cis people won't date trans people