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

(+) Yeah! (+)

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

And if they are infertile?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

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

If someone is a certain sex based on their reproductive organs, then not having reproductive organs seems pretty important, no?

Dragonblade01 posted...

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

So when a woman goes to have an ultrasound and wants to know if she is having a boy or a girl, are you suggesting that genitalia is not suitable enough for a doctor to determine the sex of a baby, since that has been the de facto means of letting pregnant women know the sex of their child for decades.

I love discussing this by the way because my answer to the first would be yes and the second no. Also, some consider transgender to be a mental illness. I dear friend of mine is transitioning and even he considers it a mental illness and a version of body dysmorphia.

MetalGearMedic posted...

So when a woman goes to have an ultrasound and wants to know if she is having a boy or a girl, are you suggesting that genitalia is not suitable enough for a doctor to determine the sex of a baby, since that has been the de facto means of letting pregnant women know the sex of their child for decades.

What I'm saying is that your viewpoint on the criteria for determining sex makes your views on trans strange. Because if they go through transitioning, then clearly they have to at the very least be no longer the sex they were born as. And it would be completely in line with what you've said about the criteria for sex.

And yet somehow I get the feeling that you'll disagree with that.

EDIT: Whoops, sorry, didn't notice the username was different. Feel free to ignore the context of the conversation with the other user, lol

Dragonblade01 posted...

If someone is a certain sex based on their reproductive organs, then not having reproductive organs seems pretty important, no?

Removing something doesn't remove that it was never there. So in the terms of does it biologically matter what genetalia they were born with matters.....to an extent yeah.

That doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed to transition and live their life how they want to. They absolutely should be allowed that without harrassment

---

Dragonblade01 posted...

What I'm saying is that your viewpoint on the criteria for determining sex makes your views on trans strange. Because if they go through transitioning, then clearly they have to at the very least be no longer the sex they were born as. And it would be completely in line with what you've said about the criteria for sex.

And yet somehow I get the feeling that you'll disagree with that.

Ah, but it isn't my viewpoint. This is the viewpoint doctors have had for decades and one that they still use for determining the sex of a child. Are you suggesting that we should change what doctors have been telling pregnant women for decades when they have an ultrasound? How would you change it?

Also, do you consider sex one feeling as if they are a woman or sex as in reproductive organs such as a penis?

Solid Snake07 posted...

Removing something doesn't remove that it was never there. So in the terms of does it biologically matter what genetalia they were born with matters.....to an extent yeah.

That doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed to transition and live their life how they want to. They absolutely should be allowed that without harrassment

Agreed

Solid Snake07 posted...

Removing something doesn't remove that it was never there. So in the terms of does it biologically matter what genetalia they were born with matters.....to an extent yeah.

That doesnt mean they shouldnt be allowed to transition and live their life how they want to. They absolutely should be allowed that without harrassment

I mean, I'm glad that you are okay with transitioning being allowed.

If the criteria is the organs, then whether they are there or not is super important. If they have them at birth, but then lose them somehow, their sex should change if said organs were the criteria. If I lose both my arms, nobody would say "Yeah, but you were born with arms, therefore you're still a person who has arms."

MetalGearMedic posted...

Ah, but it isn't my viewpoint. This is the viewpoint doctors have had for decades and one that they still use for determining the sex of a child. Are you suggesting that we should change what doctors have been telling pregnant women for decades when they have an ultrasound? How would you change it?

Also, do you consider sex one feeling as if they are a woman or sex as in reproductive organs such as a penis?

In terms of guessing the child's sex/gender at birth, I don't have a huge issue with the current setup for the sake of expediency. But what I definitely think is that we're reaching a point where we're learning that we shouldn't take as much stock in it as we used to.

And I'm not sure which criteria should be used to define sex and gender, tbh. There are anatomical components, hormonal components, there seem to be neurological component, and none of them seem to be as "yes/no" or "on/off" as we once thought.

Dragonblade01 posted...

I mean, I'm glad that you are okay with transitioning being allowed.

If the criteria is the organs, then whether they are there or not is super important. If they have them at birth, but then lose them somehow, their sex should change if said organs were the criteria. If I lose both my arms, nobody would say "Yeah, but you were born with arms, therefore you're still a person who has arms."

You can't incubate a child in your uterus if you were born a male and transitioned to a female and you cant impregnate a female if you were born female and transitioned to a male.

These truths cant be changed(yet atleast), and it's silly to insist the world works around you instead of just observing the observable.

---

its odd to me that a tiny segment of the population that is conflicted with the sex they were born as can have such an impact on the way we see biology in general. To the point we have to question accepted norms, like.. If you're born with a penis, you are a guy. If you wanna chop it off and say youre a girl, thats fine. But am i expected to see that as a natural thing? And im bad because I wouldnt date someone like that? Seems weird to me.

Solid Snake07 posted...

You can't incubate a child in your uterus if you were born a male and transitioned to a female and you cant impregnate a female if you were born female and transitioned to a male.

These truths cant be changed(yet atleast), and it's silly to insist the world works around you instead of just observing the observable.

And if you don't have those organs you can't do them either. So if you lost your sexual organs, that would mean you aren't a man or a woman.

And our current (though admittedly inadequate) understanding of transgender is based on observing the observable.

i'm not really educated enough to say, but from little I know, I'd treat them the same and use proper pronouns. I just don't know how I'd go about dating. I might watch some ContraPoints vids to get some grasp on the subject since i've seen some of her vids and enjoyed them

---

Dragonblade01 posted...

And if you don't have those organs you can't do them either. So if you lost your sexual organs, that would mean you aren't a man or a woman.

And our current (though admittedly inadequate) understanding of transgender is based on observing the observable.

If you're sterile your not "born without those parts"

Those parts just dont work how they should.......and a decent number of those people would be pissed to be included in this conversation

---

So there was a mountain of evidence and studies dropped on page 3 and we're just gonna ignore that huh
---

MarqueeSeries posted...

So there was a mountain of evidence and studies dropped on page 3 and we're just gonna ignore that huh

None of them make what I've said incorrect. So yeah we are gonna ignore it huh

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

None of them make what I've said incorrect. So yeah we are gonna ignore it huh

sex is a fair bit more complicated than "penis or vagina" dude

---

averagejoel posted...

sex is a fair bit more complicated than "penis or vagina" dude

No, it's fairly straight forward biologically

Societal gender roles can be a very complex subject though

---

No.

---

Meanwhile there are fungies with 36,000 sexes.

---

Foppe posted...

Meanwhile there are fungies with 36,000 sexes.

Lol fungies

---

That's their fight. If regular women accept them in their spaces then that's fine.

I wouldn't date or get physical with a trans woman.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

No, it's fairly straight forward biologically

objectively incorrect

see posts 120 and 128 for specific reasoning why you are incorrect

---

Same category as in I would date them? Not at all. Same category as in I treat them like people? Absolutely.

---

Post-Op: Same category
Pre-Op: Different but still in my dating pool since Im bi or pan or whatever anyways.

As far as stuff like bathrooms go; its a two sided issue. The women's room is safer for their sake but the propaganda is some guy will fake it to get in the women's room. Sadly that might be true but like, sexual assault is already illegal, isn't it?

---