Current Events > Are trans girls in the same category as cis girls in your mind?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Solid Snake07 posted...

You know what I mean so cut the shit

if you mean "cis" you should probably just cut the bullshit and say "cis"

---

averagejoel posted...

if you mean "cis" you should probably just cut the bullshit and say "cis"

Lol, I dont have to use your approved vocabulary, but nice try Kim Jong.

But you keep trying to marginalize the majority. I'm sure that'll work out

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Lol, I dont have to use your approved vocabulary, but nice try Kim Jong.

"biological" and "cis" are not synonyms and they should not be used as such. sorry for expecting people to be precise in their language

But you keep trying to marginalize the majority.

that is a lie

---

averagejoel posted...

"biological" and "cis" are not synonyms and they should not be used as such. sorry for expecting people to be precise in their language

You're trying to police speech based on nonsense, which kind of makes you a shitty self centered person. Sorry, work on it, or dont. No one really cares outside of your little internet eco chamber anyway

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

You're trying to police speech based on nonsense, which kind of makes you a shitty self centered person. Sorry, work on it, or dont. No one really cares outside of your little internet eco chamber anyway

You're treating yourself as some sort of victim and making this a political thing when it's just a "speaking clearly" thing. Talk about self-centered.

---

Evening_Dragon posted...

You're treating yourself as some sort of victim and making this a political thing when it's just a "speaking clearly" thing. Talk about self-centered.

Lol, now I'm the one playing the victim. You kids need to get your naive ass outside a few times a week.

---

No they're not.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Lol, now I'm the one playing the victim. You kids need to get your naive ass outside a few times a week.

This statement makes no sense. Nothing you've been saying makes any sense.

Tell me, how much stock do you put in "culture war"?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

You're trying to police speech based on nonsense

double lie! I'm not policing you and it isn't based on nonsense.

Sorry, work on it, or dont

you being imprecise in your language is something for you to work on. not me.

might also want to unlearn some transphobic attitudes while you're at it

No one really cares outside of your little internet eco chamber anyway

another lie! that's three in one post; you're really on a roll here.

for the record: most people I know in real life care about the distinction between "cis" and "biological" -- not only is the latter vague, but its only use in this context is to delegitimize trans people

also: you spelled "echo" wrong

---

No.

Kaiganeer posted...

women are women and trans women are trans women

What if its just someone who crossdresses? or is that the same thing?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

averagejoel posted...

"biological" and "cis" are not synonyms and they should not be used as such. sorry for expecting people to be precise in their language

You're trying to police speech based on nonsense, which kind of makes you a shitty self centered person. Sorry, work on it, or dont. No one really cares outside of your little internet eco chamber anyway

No, generally if you're gonna be taken seriously, you need to use the correct terminology.

You're more than free to speak on things you clearly aren't educated about, but everyone else is also free to point that out and discredit you
---

averagejoel posted...

you really like belittling trans people, don't you

how is that belittling trans people? I am just following your logic.
for example.
group a
subcategory I
subcategory II

both subcategories are from group a.
It could have been anything. I wasnt sneak dissing anyone in the spectrum with my words.

---

I meant I see where you are coming from. Although personally, I dont see the categories breaking down like that.
for example

I women
A. Cis women
B. Trans women
etc.

I see trans women in a separate category.

I. Cis women
II. Trans women
etc.

that is my personal opinion.

---

No they will never be. I will never see trans girls the same way as biologically female. They're just different. In a other category

---

MarqueeSeries posted...

No, generally if you're gonna be taken seriously, you need to use the correct terminology.

You're more than free to speak on things you clearly aren't educated about, but everyone else is also free to point that out and discredit you

That would make sense if anything I said was wrong. A man who transitions to a woman is not a biological female and a woman who transitions to a man isnt a biological male. You can play buzzword semantics all you want to but it is what it is.

You can identify yourself as whatever you want, wear whatever you want, and date whoever you want for all I care. More power to you and if I know your personally I'll address you as whatever pronoun you want me to.

But you dont get to demand the rest of the world distorts perceptive reality to appease your self identification. That's some of the most narcissistic shit I've ever heard. And the worst thing about is is most trans people I know aren't like that. They're just normal people who dont want to be fucked with.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

That would make sense if anything I said was wrong. A man who transitions to a woman is not a biological female and a woman who transitions to a man isnt a biological male. You can play buzzword semantics all you want to but it is what it is.

You can identify yourself as whatever you want, wear whatever you want, and date whoever you want for all I care. More power to you and if I know your personally I'll address you as whatever pronoun you want me to.

But you dont get to demand the rest of the world distorts perceptive reality to appease your self identification. That's some of the most narcissistic shit I've ever heard. And the worst thing about is is most trans people I know aren't like that. They're just normal people who dont want to be fucked with.

Perceptive reality?

Also that's not what transitioning is about.

Solid Snake07 posted...

That would make sense if anything I said was wrong. A man who transitions to a woman is not a biological female and a woman who transitions to a man isnt a biological male. You can play buzzword semantics all you want to but it is what it is.

how are you defining "biological female" and "biological male" here? "biological" is extremely imprecise. what specific physical or chemical characteristics are you deeming necessary in order for a person to be considered a "biological" male or female? chromosomes? gametes? hormones? secondary traits?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

No, generally if you're gonna be taken seriously, you need to use the correct terminology.

You're more than free to speak on things you clearly aren't educated about, but everyone else is also free to point that out and discredit you

That would make sense if anything I said was wrong. A man who transitions to a woman is not a biological female and a woman who transitions to a man isnt a biological male. You can play buzzword semantics all you want to but it is what it is.

You can identify yourself as whatever you want, wear whatever you want, and date whoever you want for all I care. More power to you and if I know your personally I'll address you as whatever pronoun you want me to.

But you dont get to demand the rest of the world distorts perceptive reality to appease your self identification. That's some of the most narcissistic shit I've ever heard. And the worst thing about is is most trans people I know aren't like that. They're just normal people who dont want to be fucked with.

This isn't about self identification. Labeling it as such is a massive discredit to trans people and is a pretty dead giveaway that you dont know what the fuck you're talking about

averagejoel posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

That would make sense if anything I said was wrong. A man who transitions to a woman is not a biological female and a woman who transitions to a man isnt a biological male. You can play buzzword semantics all you want to but it is what it is.

how are you defining "biological female" and "biological male" here? "biological" is extremely imprecise. what specific physical or chemical characteristics are you deeming necessary in order for a person to be considered a "biological" male or female? chromosomes? gametes? hormones? secondary traits?

Actually, I'm a little curious about this too.

We've got hormone replacement therapy. Physical surgeries. Gene editing quickly progressing. The transition process is becoming more and more thorough, so where do you draw the line for someone being "biologically" male or female, preferably without using the words "born as a ____"
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

Actually, I'm a little curious about this too.

We've got hormone replacement therapy. Physical surgeries. Gene editing quickly progressing. The transition process is becoming more and more thorough, so where do you draw the line for someone being "biologically" male or female, preferably without using the words "born as a ____"

sex is a lot more complicated than "penis or vagina", and I'm 95% sure that he's just ignoring that because he wants to have a reason to discriminate against trans people.

but factually, if you graphed the sexual characteristics of everyone on earth, you'd get something that looked kinda like this:

probably most people would be at or near one of the two peaks:
-one penis, two testes, a prostate, visible facial hair, body produces specific amounts of certain specific hormones, etc.
-a vagina, a uterus, two ovaries, two developed breasts, body produces different specific amounts of specific hormones, etc.

and deviation from that would put you somewhere farther from one of the two peaks.

for a long time, scientists basically treated it as though only the two peaks existed, because 2 is an easy number to use for data. and it worked reasonably well, most of the time, for most people. but more recently, they've realized that such a model is not actually very effective for predicting results anymore. there are XY people that have given birth. there are XX people that have a penis and ovaries.

these are often written off as "abnormalities", and there are definitely some of these cases that have medical issues. but many don't. a few years back there was a pregnant woman who went to test her baby's chromosomes and found that a large part of her body had XY chromosomes.

stem cells from a fetus can also cross through the placenta into the mother's body, which is a whole other thing in and of itself.

now, you seem pretty legitimately inquisitive about this. but I've interacted with Solid Snake07 before, and I'm pretty confident that he doesn't actually have an answer for you

---

They are both women to me. Some women I would engage in a physical relationship with, others I would not.

How is that any different if they are trans or not?

---

dj1200 posted...

how is that belittling trans people? I am just following your logic.
for example.
group a
subcategory I
subcategory II

both subcategories are from group a.
It could have been anything. I wasnt sneak dissing anyone in the spectrum with my words.

the better analogy would be like
ginger cats and black cats

trans women are frequently painted as predators. using tabby cats (which are just house cats with some specific features; they can literally be any breed) and mountain lions perpetuates that stereotype

---

averagejoel posted...

MarqueeSeries posted...

Actually, I'm a little curious about this too.

We've got hormone replacement therapy. Physical surgeries. Gene editing quickly progressing. The transition process is becoming more and more thorough, so where do you draw the line for someone being "biologically" male or female, preferably without using the words "born as a ____"

sex is a lot more complicated than "penis or vagina", and I'm 95% sure that he's just ignoring that because he wants to have a reason to discriminate against trans people.

but factually, if you graphed the sexual characteristics of everyone on earth, you'd get something that looked kinda like this:
<img src="" />
probably most people would be at or near one of the two peaks:
-one penis, two testes, a prostate, visible facial hair, body produces specific amounts of certain specific hormones, etc.
-a vagina, a uterus, two ovaries, two developed breasts, body produces different specific amounts of specific hormones, etc.

and deviation from that would put you somewhere farther from one of the two peaks.

for a long time, scientists basically treated it as though only the two peaks existed, because 2 is an easy number to use for data. and it worked reasonably well, most of the time, for most people. but more recently, they've realized that such a model is not actually very effective for predicting results anymore. there are XY people that have given birth. there are XX people that have a penis and ovaries.

these are often written off as "abnormalities", and there are definitely some of these cases that have medical issues. but many don't. a few years back there was a pregnant woman who went to test her baby's chromosomes and found that a large part of her body had XY chromosomes.

stem cells from a fetus can also cross through the placenta into the mother's body, which is a whole other thing in and of itself.

now, you seem pretty legitimately inquisitive about this. but I've interacted with Solid Snake07 before, and I'm pretty confident that he doesn't actually have an answer for you

This was actually pretty informative, I appreciate the detailed breakdown.

We're constantly evolving our understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, etc and often have to throw out and rework models, but it's a shame that some people will grip onto the old models until they die
---

Yes to the first.

No to the second.

---

Please note that TC gave absolutely no pushback until someone answered "yes". His motive was clear from the OP.

---

Nope

---

MarqueeSeries posted...

This was actually pretty informative, I appreciate the detailed breakdown.

We're constantly evolving our understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, etc and often have to throw out and rework models, but it's a shame that some people will grip onto the old models until they die

I forgot to include this stuff last night because I was tired, but here's some further reading for those who are interested:

this is a solid explanation of the embryology of sex organs and how that relates to a sex spectrum and intersex people:
https://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2011/01/phalloclitoris-anatomy-and-ideology.html

this piece references some of the more common human-based scientific papers people use to discuss these issues. it's also just generally a good read:
https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

this one is about how differences between "male" and "female" brains are not actually so clear-cut:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/brains-men-and-women-aren-t-really-different-study-finds

this article has a ton of good links to primary sources, and it does a good job talking about how the spectrum extends past the obvious points.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

there's also a bunch of heavy-duty science papers for those interested:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5676419/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724313
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20616232
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27240659

---

averagejoel posted...

how are you defining "biological female" and "biological male" here? "biological" is extremely imprecise. what specific physical or chemical characteristics are you deeming necessary in order for a person to be considered a "biological" male or female? chromosomes? gametes? hormones? secondary traits?

What biological sex you were born as. There's nothing offensive about acknowledging reality. If biology offends you, you're probably the one with the problem, not 99% of other people

---

MarqueeSeries posted...

This was actually pretty informative, I appreciate the detailed breakdown.

We're constantly evolving our understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, etc and often have to throw out and rework models, but it's a shame that some people will grip onto the old models until they die

*eyeroll*

I gurantee both of you would fail the shit out of a basic exam about any of those three subjects

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

What biological sex you were born as.

that is not a specific physical or chemical characteristic. try again

Solid Snake07 posted...

There's nothing offensive about acknowledging reality. If biology offends you, you're probably the one with the problem, not 99% of other people

which is why I'm being so patient and kind with you here: I want to help you with your problem

---

averagejoel posted...

that is not a specific physical or chemical characteristic. try again

Yes it is, try again

---

I treat the few trans people I know personally with respect and acceptance. There is no reason not to.

I make a purely personal distinction between cis and trans: it is currently not the same thing, until technology catches up and is able to make fundamental biological changes to people. Until such a time, I remain aware of the biological difference and it influences my perception in regards to romantic interest.

---

They can do whatever they want, doesnt bother me! But id never date a trans person, nor even consider it. And theyre not the same to me, to answer tcs question.

Keith_Valentine posted...

They can do whatever they want, doesnt bother me! But id never date a trans person, nor even consider it. And theyre not the same to me.

Bigot

---

Different strokes for different folks man. ^_^

Dont see how that makes me a bigot tbh?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Different strokes for different folks man. ^_^

Dont see how that makes me a bigot tbh?

Sorry, I'm joking

I'm just poking fun at a few crazies in this topic, not you

---

Ahh I see. I didnt read the topic, figured it was full of rage and shit like that. I almost deleted my post cuz im like.. Man.. Is it Offensive on gfaqs in 2020 to say im attracted to people that were born with female genitals?? Cuz ive been modded for less tbh.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Ahh I see. I didnt read the topic, figured it was full of rage and shit like that. I almost deleted my post cuz im like.. Man.. Is it Offensive on gfaqs in 2020 to say im attracted to people that were born with female genitals?? Cuz ive been modded for less tbh.

No, but appently acknowledging that almost all people are born with either male of female genetalia is offensive archaic shit according to a few wannabe scientist here

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Yes it is, try again

What criteria are being used to determine someone's "biological sex" when they are born?

Dragonblade01 posted...

What criteria are being used to determine someone's "biological sex" when they are born?

Sexual organs

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Sexual organs

So the only thing that determines someone's sex is the relevant reproductive organs?

Dragonblade01 posted...

So the only thing that determines someone's sex is the relevant reproductive organs?

In the most objective (Biological)sense possible, yes

As far as mammals are concerned, a biological male produces sperm which can impregnate a female's egg. A biological female produces eggs which can be fertilized by a males sperm. It's basic biology. You can and should be able to live your life how you want, but you dont get to change biology

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

In the most objective (Biological)sense possible, yes

As far as mammals are concerned, a biological male produces sperm which can impregnate a female's egg. A biological female produces eggs which can be fertilized by a males sperm. It's basic biology. You can and should be able to live your life how you want, but you dont get to change biology

I mean, according to your own standard, it seems like you very much can change your biology. All you have to do is change/get rid of said organs.

Dragonblade01 posted...

I mean, according to your own standard, it seems like you very much can change your biology. All you have to do is change/get rid of said organs.

My standard dictates being born with those organs

And even if it didnt, what you're proposing isnt possible yet

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

My standard dictates being born with those organs

And even if it didnt, what you're proposing isnt possible yet

What difference does it make if you're born with it if you don't have it later?

If it all revolves around having the relevant reproductive organs, then losing them or changing them would be the only thing that matters.

And you may not agree that changing them is possible yet, but losing them definitely is.

Dragonblade01 posted...

If it all revolves around having the relevant reproductive organs, then losing them or changing them would be the only thing that matters.

Based upon what?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Based upon what?

Based on your idea that the sexual organs are the relevant criteria for determining sex.

Dragonblade01 posted...

Based on your idea that the sexual organs are the relevant criteria for determining sex.

But why would a lack of sexual organ be more important than the presence of sexual organs?

---