Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,148 comments
  • 113,156 views

How many Genders do you think exist?

  • 2 (Male and Female)

    Votes: 207 49.5%

  • 3 (Male, Female and Intersex)

    Votes: 18 4.3%

  • More than 3

    Votes: 50 12.0%

  • Don't care

    Votes: 143 34.2%
  • Total voters
    418
ryzno
and I get these stupid 5 warning points removed over something I didn't do,
Click to expand...
You can discuss it in the conversation message you received, or you can take it further if you wish. Discussing it in the thread is entirely the wrong way to go about that.

Appealing Moderator Actions

You can contact the site owner to appeal a moderator’s decision. Please include your account username and a description of what happened and why you wish to appeal the staff’s decision.

All complaints will be reviewed, though you will not receive a reply unless further information is requested.
Click to expand...
 
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/gang-up
to unite as a group against someone:

They all ganged up to try and get him to change his decision.
Click to expand...

I'd just like to apologize for using this term in accordance with the dictionary, and I will leave you in peace to continue.

I stated from the beginning I didn't want to get in a big discussion about it, and I'm not going to.

I thought I could simply express an opinion on the opinion forum, without it becoming a massive back and forth with a bunch of people but I was mistaken.
It won't happen again.

:cheers:
 
G.T.Ace
So you're cis-hetero.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. I've been a straight male my entire life. That's what it was called when I was born.
This is exactly why I don't consider myself a millennial. I don't agree with the new ways.
 
ryzno
In your opinion. I've been a straight male my entire life. That's what it was called when I was born.
This is exactly why I don't consider myself a millennial. I don't agree with the new ways.
Click to expand...

It is a good idea though to open yourself up even though you dont agree. Like you are embracing the internet, which has brought immense change, you should also be open to other cultures and a constantly evolving society.
 
ryzno
In your opinion. I've been a straight male my entire life. That's what it was called when I was born.
This is exactly why I don't consider myself a millennial. I don't agree with the new ways.
Click to expand...
Straight just refers to your sexual orientation. Hetero = Straight, Homo = Gay/Lesbian.
You can be all of that and still be trans, or not. You could also say "non-trans", but I find "cis" better because of its shortness and because I don't like the negativity with saying "non-....".

The term is over 20 years old now, so barely "new".
 
ryzno
In your opinion. I've been a straight male my entire life. That's what it was called when I was born.
This is exactly why I don't consider myself a millennial. I don't agree with the new ways.
Click to expand...

Cisgender = your gender is the same as your sex. I.E. you are a cisgender male simply means you have a penis and you see yourself as a man.

Heterosexual = straight.

This literally isn't a matter of opinion, dude. Cis-hetero man = straight man. I can't possibly imagine it being as hard to comprehend as it seems to be...
 
ryzno
In your opinion. I've been a straight male my entire life. That's what it was called when I was born.
This is exactly why I don't consider myself a millennial. I don't agree with the new ways.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement isn't helping. I fight bad SJW policies like the terms manspreading or white privilege, but with the term cis-hetero you are wrong, because it is an established term describing straight males, it has no negative meaning.
You cannot criticise these new policies if you are annoyed by every little term which is too new for you, even though that isn't the point of the conversation.
 
TenEightyOne
Cis is a latin prefix - just how old ARE you!? :embarrassed: :D
Click to expand...
My profile doesn't lie, 33 years young. :D
Dobermann92
Disagreeing for the sake of disagreement isn't helping. I fight bad SJW policies like the terms manspreading or white privilege, but with the term cis-hetero you are wrong, because it is an established term describing straight males, it has no negative meaning.
You cannot criticise these new policies if you are annoyed by every little term which is too new for you, even though that isn't the point of the conversation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Hetero-cis it is then!
 
Supaboost
Social justice is a farce, just hate and bigotry hiding being it. Justice is justice its not emotional or irrational as sj is.
Click to expand...

That seems to make no sense. How is justice in a social sense any different from justice (justness) in any other sense? If something is just then it is beyond the consideration of rationale or a lack thereof.
 
TenEightyOne
That seems to make no sense. How is justice in a social sense any different from justice (justness) in any other sense? If something is just then it is beyond the consideration of rationale or a lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Justice is based in logic facts and the written law it is debated and question and possible changed for the better.

SJ is emotional insanity where feelings dictate the outcome of whats right or wrong.
 
TenEightyOne
That seems to make no sense. How is justice in a social sense any different from justice (justness) in any other sense? If something is just then it is beyond the consideration of rationale or a lack thereof.
Click to expand...

Some of it is forced though, which alienates a lot of people. I was called a right-wing, conservative several times because of my opposition of the more extreme ideas, although I'm a classical liberal. When there is an outrage in every corner I try to hold a resonable moderate position.
Like for example there are people who think that refusing a trans person on a dating means that you are a transphobe or if you only date white girls you are a racist which is insane, so even those who think some kind of social justice needs to exist should point out these extremes and shouldn't deny their existense.
 
G.T.Ace
Click to expand...


"It started to loose it's meaning" just like the world nazi and alt-right used by the far-left?

The video is wrong on several levels, first of all confusing libertarianism with classical liberalism. It isn't the topic to di It is good to know that this person in the video says what I think even though he doesn't know how I think. For example agnosticism doesn't exists, you are either an atheist or a theist, you can be a hard or a soft atheist. Yes, he is right that classical liberalism isn't the only label which applies to me. I could criticize the video all day long, but this topic isn't for it, so please open a new one if you are interested.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
 
Last edited:
G.T.Ace
Click to expand...

I'm not likely to watch an 18 minute Youtube video posted as a response to four words in a thread, especially with no context or interpretation from yourself. I see that sort of tactic a lot from people with relatively strong and inflexible views on this forum on both ends of the spectrum, and it doesn't help anyone. If you want to articulate a view, do it yourself. If you can't do that then I'd suggest taking a closer look at those views. Personally I've changed or softened my opinions many times when faced with having to explain them to others, because it forced me to reflect on those views.
 
Dobermann92
first of all confusing libertarianism with classical liberalism
Click to expand...
It's not and actually explaining it.
Dobermann92
Agnosticism doesn't exists
Click to expand...
This is a factual incorrect statement.

I also don't know why you're linking to Wikipedia here. No one is saying Classical Liberalism doesn't exist, it just shows that it's actually a very conservative view. So, when people tell you you're conservative, maybe you should accept that.

Beeblebrox237
I'm not likely to watch an 18 minute Youtube video posted as a response to four words in a thread, especially with no context or interpretation from yourself. I see that sort of tactic a lot from people with relatively strong and inflexible views on this forum on both ends of the spectrum, and it doesn't help anyone. If you want to articulate a view, do it yourself. If you can't do that then I'd suggest taking a closer look at those views. Personally I've changed or softened my opinions many times when faced with having to explain them to others, because it forced me to reflect on those views.
Click to expand...
Cool, but I didn't direct it to you and frankly didn't ask for your opinion.
Also, it's not a tactic. You can watch it and make up your mind or... dunno, ignore it.
 
G.T.Ace
I also don't know why you're linking to Wikipedia here. No one is saying Classical Liberalism doesn't exist, it just shows that it's actually a very conservative view. So, when people tell you you're conservative, maybe you should accept that.
Click to expand...
So the source you linked is worth spending 18 minutes on but you won't read the article he linked?
G.T.Ace
Cool, but I didn't direct it to you and frankly didn't ask for your opinion.
Also, it's not a tactic. You can watch it and make up your mind or... dunno, ignore it.
Click to expand...
You didn't ask for anyone's opinion. You posted it without any context whatsoever. Based on that, I'm going to assume that you posted it to show how ridiculous the far left are and that you feel that Dobermann92's views are more liberal than yours.

On topic, I still don't quite understand why people get so upset about the idea of trans people. I'm not sure if it makes people feel threatened or what, but the total denial that anyone could experience their bodies in a different way than you can to me shows a relative lack of empathy. To take an example from a previous post, I think the situation of dating a trans woman and upon having sex for the first time discover that she's pre-op (or, more crudely, has a penis) is a very odd one. Firstly, it shows that you accept that a person can look, act, and in all aspects other than genitalia be a different gender so much so that you would accept them as female until getting in their pants. Second, it shows an incredible lack of communication and a very odd, and I daresay unnatural, view of a long term sexual relationship. It would be not all that different than if you got someone undressed only to find they had herpes. At the end of the day, going down on them isn't going to kill you, but it might be something you're not comfortable with, and it's something that one would not expect based on the person appearing to be a healthy cisgendered woman (or man, but we're using a woman for this example). It's something that you would most likely mention before having sex, rather than waiting until your partner was in a vulnerable and aroused state. It's not a perfect comparison, but I hope it doesn't get in the way of the points I'm trying to make.
 

Latest Posts

Back