• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should transwomen be legally treated as women?[W:165,1392]

Should transwomen be legally trreated as women?


  • Total voters
    160
I didn't even know a person named Bruce Jenner even existed until this all got tossed up in my face a couple weeks ago. Don't ask me why it matters, ask the publishers. Don't like my opinion, don't bring it up.

The Army is getting ready for a ground war with Russia within the next 3 years and you people are worried about some dude wearing a dress having access to a bathroom of their choice.

I didn't know the person either, nor do I care about that particular person.

There are a lot of other things going on in the world besides Russia as well. To drop all other issues besides that one would be just as ridiculous as concentrating mainly on making it at the very least not against the law for a person to use the restroom they wish to use. Any concerns about safety are already covered by other laws pertaining to purposely trying to see someone naked, sexual harassment, and/or sexual assault, which would apply to both men and women.
 
Fair enough... although that is not my argument. That also goes back to our debate about trans in female locker rooms.

First, you responded to my post by Jerry.

Second, you brought up having a penis, as if that was truly used by people to determine sex when first meeting them. It actually isn't used that much more often (relatively speaking) than DNA. Most people go off of other, less personal looks to determine sex/gender, not their private parts.
 
I didn't know the person either, nor do I care about that particular person.

There are a lot of other things going on in the world besides Russia as well. To drop all other issues besides that one would be just as ridiculous as concentrating mainly on making it at the very least not against the law for a person to use the restroom they wish to use. Any concerns about safety are already covered by other laws pertaining to purposely trying to see someone naked, sexual harassment, and/or sexual assault, which would apply to both men and women.
Yeah, China is openly violating international watters by building "the great wall of sand", but hey, let's talk about 2 dudes who want to marry instead.
 
Yeah, China is openly violating international watters by building "the great wall of sand", but hey, let's talk about 2 dudes who want to marry instead.

You are free to not discuss any issue you wish and merely concentrate on China and/or Russia. The rest of us though are going to discuss other things. You are still free to join us.
 
You are free to not discuss any issue you wish and merely concentrate on China and/or Russia. The rest of us though are going to discuss other things. You are still free to join us.
Hey, you asked.
 
I want to be an Apache Indian. Ive always wanted to be Native American ever since I was a little kid. I used to put bacon in this little pouch and go on little expiditions pretending I was native american with venison in the pouch. I feel like im more of a tribal human deep down than a city human. I want to get native american benifets and be a Native American now. If we legally allow people to magically change their sex or gender or whatever then I want to be able to change my race. And I want to be Native American Apache. Im serious. If guys can become girls then white men can become native americans and I want all the benifits.
 
Ive always wanted to be Native American ever since I was a little kid.

To what country are you native?

I'm a native American. Yes, my ancestors came from Europe, but I am four generations removed from my nearest ancestors to have been born anywhere but America. I have at least one line that has been here since the 1600s. I was born here, have lived here all my life, will surely die here, and whatever disposition is made of my mortal remains will occur here.
 
To what country are you native?

I'm a native American. Yes, my ancestors came from Europe, but I am four generations removed from my nearest ancestors to have been born anywhere but America. I have at least one line that has been here since the 1600s. I was born here, have lived here all my life, will surely die here, and whatever disposition is made of my mortal remains will occur here.
I was born in America.

As I wanna be an ancestral native-Americans. The brown people that were here before Europe. The people that get to live on Indian reservations. I wanna be an Indian/Native american. I feel tribal at heart and feel like a tribal human. I want to be able to put "Native American" down on my race and get all the benefits/burdens that they get.
 
I was born in America.

As I wanna be an ancestral native-Americans. The brown people that were here before Europe. The people that get to live on Indian reservations. I wanna be an Indian/Native american. I feel tribal at heart and feel like a tribal human. I want to be able to put "Native American" down on my race and get all the benefits/burdens that they get.

Are you also willing to undergo years of psychotherapy and jump through numerous legal hurdles to obtain this new racial classification?
 
Are you also willing to undergo years of psychotherapy and jump through numerous legal hurdles to obtain this new racial classification?

Cant i just walk barefoot and hunt my own food for a year? Oh id prolly have to pee and poop outside too so you are going to have to change your laws to make it ok for me to do that.
 
Last edited:
I dont expect anyone to allow me to reassign myself as "Native American". That would be absurd. It would super, duper cool but it would also be absurd. I mean... If someone can chose to change their gender though I wasnt to be able to get me some of them native american benifits and government money and stuff. 100% full blood native american plz.
 
First, you responded to my post by Jerry.

Second, you brought up having a penis, as if that was truly used by people to determine sex when first meeting them. It actually isn't used that much more often (relatively speaking) than DNA. Most people go off of other, less personal looks to determine sex/gender, not their private parts.

You added the bold part, as you did before, and it has nothing to do with my point, as before... so we might as well just stop.
 
So can I be Apache plz? I want to be Apache and i want the government to recognize it and I want the gov. to be able to force the Apache nation to accept me as Apache plz. I think it would be really cool to be accepted into their tribe.
 
So can I be Apache plz? I want to be Apache and i want the government to recognize it and I want the gov. to be able to force the Apache nation to accept me as Apache plz. I think it would be really cool to be accepted into their tribe.

Have an Apache adopt you.
 
Have an Apache adopt you.

But I think earning the respect of them will be too daunting. I rather have the government declare me part of Apache Nation. Im an Indian too. Im an honest injun' Indian.

 
:shrug: Nobody said anything about submission until you brought it up.
It's a very commonly perpetuated gender role. Either you're extremely out of touch and live in a forest or, my prediction, you're being disingenuous - surprise!

:shrug: look, you can pick at specifics if you like, the fact remains that gender roles are built on biological realities, however they get built. In no society have men stayed home with infants while women went off to war - for basic, biological reasons. Women lactate, men are stronger. You can argue that some gender roles that have been created are no longer necessary or apt, and I'll agree with you. But the blanket statement that there are no connections is on it's face ridiculous - ideology trying to trump physical reality. The idea that pregnancy has nothing to do with gender roles is laughable.
You seem to have no grasp on what a gender role even is, and you've not once presented an argument - not even a supposition (your guys' favorite!) that logically follows - to back up your claim of facts. "Women lactate, men are stronger." Which gender roles do these apply to? Are weak, skinny guys submissive? Are they pushed under the gender roles of women because men are stronger than them?

The actual fact is that there is no clear, objective evidence as to how gender roles initially started, nor how they were perpetuated for so long. What we do know, however, is that they are not necessary or apt, as you said. The logical conclusion therefore is that gender roles are not based in biology, because they are not necessary and not apt. If they were based in biology, they would be apt. Perhaps they could be ill-perceived to be based in biology, but I don't use falsehoods as arguments, ironically said to the side so against non-existent falsehoods. Anything otherwise would not follow.
 
No, "she" is a man. He does not have a uterus, a real vagina, a clit, etc. Man.
You are using conventional, simplified standards that are only perceived to be correct because they apply to a large percent of the population to classify a minority who wasn't considered when these classifications and sets of nomenclature were brought up. Someone who has a uterus, has a uterus. They likely have a vagina too. It is your prerogative and failure to adapt with definitions, as they always do. Female is subjective. Feminine is subjective. For so long, they have been treated as objective, as so their names have been bled to an actual objective science like Biology. This was done in a time of incomplete understanding of pretty much everything in the world - which was largely ignorant of trans peoples' existence and especially the science behind them. You adapt and die or you don't adapt and die. Either way, society will move on without you. You can be known as the rigid grump or the empathetic gentleman who was on the right side of history.

No. A man should not take place in woman's sports and vice versa. Any athlete will tell you this. I was a very good athlete.
I'd say a 250lb 6ft tall man shouldn't be facing a 100lb 5ft fall man in sports, regardless of gender.

I have an educated hypothesis with a knowledge base to support it as well... so there goes your theory.
What knowledge base do you have that's beyond philosophical supposition attempted to justify being cruel to people?


PC is an attack method designed to quite an opponent by putting them on the defensive... here, look how easy it works:

Your arguments here are sexist. You are a sexist.
PC is a myth perpetuated by rigid, mean people who think that the natural consequences of going against the grain of society, and more importantly progress, should be met with neutrality or acceptance. They are what they claim to hate. "Accept what I say, don't give me natural consequences of being an ass, and allow me to dismantle your society while you watch in silence."
 
It's a very commonly perpetuated gender role.

and? I'm not insisting that you defend marching in parades wearing a piece of string wrapped around your ding-a-ling, despite that being a commonly perpetuated image of the LGBT community.

Respond to what people actually write, or they will call you out on it. No one said anything about submission until you brought it up.

You seem to have no grasp on what a gender role even is, and you've not once presented an argument - not even a supposition (your guys' favorite!)

Firstly, the phrase "you guys" is sexist.

Secondly, I have only laid out the most basic of the gender roles, namely, sexual dimorphism's effect on gender roles as it relates to the care of infants and the use of institutionalized violence.

that logically follows - to back up your claim of facts. "Women lactate, men are stronger." Which gender roles do these apply to?

Well, if you will note, I gave you the examples in the immediately preceding sentence.

cpwill said:
In no society have men stayed home with infants while women went off to war

:)

Are weak, skinny guys submissive? Are they pushed under the gender roles of women because men are stronger than them?

:shrug: I don't know what your obsession with submission is, but there is a forum for discussing sexual fantasies, and this isn't it. If you get off by having a female or skinny male sub, that's your thing, and while you're free to bring it up there, no one else is talking about it here.

The actual fact is that there is no clear, objective evidence as to how gender roles initially started, nor how they were perpetuated for so long.

Sure there is. Look at just about every other species on the planet. Gender roles evolve and are maintained because they are advantageous for those who use them and built on biological reality.

What we do know, however, is that they are not necessary or apt, as you said. The logical conclusion therefore is that gender roles are not based in biology, because they are not necessary and not apt.

:lamo

There is zero evidence in favor of this make-believe conclusion and it flies in the face of everything else that we know about biology, and quite a lot that we've learned in sociology.

But it's okay, I get it. Ideology Uber Alles. :)

If they were based in biology, they would be apt.

Ah. So you mean that we would see things like women's brains reacting differently to the sounds of infants crying and the ability of the adult human female (known as a woman) to produce milk for the feeding of small infants, a trait that would not be present in males? We would see things like men having 7 to 8 as much times Testosterone as women?

:lol:
 
Much of the right's argument:

[Insert fallacious analogy here where I compare wanting to be something/someone else - a condition that isn't widespread, with common threads running through it, years of science researching the phenomenon, decades of attempts to understand what it is, decades of attempts to treat the condition mentally, decades of failing to treat the condition mentally, books of evidence showing it's not a delusion and is also a real thing, etc.)

Or more accurately portrayed: DIS GUY WANT BE LIZERD. HE IS TRANSLIZERD L.o.L. THAT'S Y TRANSGRENDRER IS DUM

And then they'll use one loon putting on black face and being dishonest (or mentally ill) as some kind of proof too, I'll bet.
 
Much of the right's argument:

[Insert fallacious analogy here where I compare wanting to be something/someone else - a condition that isn't widespread, with common threads running through it, years of science researching the phenomenon, decades of attempts to understand what it is, decades of attempts to treat the condition mentally, decades of failing to treat the condition mentally, books of evidence showing it's not a delusion and is also a real thing, etc.)

Or more accurately portrayed: DIS GUY WANT BE LIZERD. HE IS TRANSLIZERD L.o.L. THAT'S Y TRANSGRENDRER IS DUM

And then they'll use one loon putting on black face and being dishonest (or mentally ill) as some kind of proof too, I'll bet.

I want to be an Indian/Native American.
 
and? I'm not insisting that you defend marching in parades wearing a piece of string wrapped around your ding-a-ling, despite that being a commonly perpetuated image of the LGBT community.
Generalizations, stereotypes, and factually incorrect beliefs are not gender roles, nor are they close. It is a completely failed analogy. You used the word "perpetuated" though, so it must be the same! You tried.

Respond to what people actually write, or they will call you out on it. No one said anything about submission until you brought it up.
We were talking about gender roles. You gave a speech and half about a concept you didn't even understand. My refutation was that your posts had nothing to do with gender roles, and I cited the most commonly perpetuated, commonly reported aspect of the female gender role. You're feigning that my argument doesn't follow because you know it does and completely dismantles what you were saying about gender roles.

Firstly, the phrase "you guys" is sexist.
That seems to logically follow. I said something slightly sexist because it's ingrained in my vocabulary, though I'm not excusing it. Congrats on being correct one time.

Secondly, I have only laid out the most basic of the gender roles, namely, sexual dimorphism's effect on gender roles as it relates to the care of infants and the use of institutionalized violence.
You have laid out the most basic of gender roles, namely..... something's effect on gender roles? Logic follow doesn't.

Well, if you will note, I gave you the examples in the immediately preceding sentence.
Your example didn't logically follow.

Sure there is. Look at just about every other species on the planet. Gender roles evolve and are maintained because they are advantageous for those who use them and built on biological reality.
There is no evidence I'm aware of to conclude that any species other than us has a sense of gender. How you came to the conclusion that they not only have gender but are subject to gender roles is beyond me.

There is zero evidence in favor of this make-believe conclusion and it flies in the face of everything else that we know about biology, and quite a lot that we've learned in sociology.
Actually there is if you read pretty much any study on gender.

Ah. So you mean that we would see things like women's brains reacting differently to the sounds of infants crying and the ability of the adult human female (known as a woman) to produce milk for the feeding of small infants, a trait that would not be present in males? We would see things like men having 7 to 8 as much times Testosterone as women?
There is no evidence to support that these aren't largely the result of gender roles and socialization (besides testosterone). Even so, I am not saying that there are not different physical and sometimes mental traits between the two conventionally perceived sexes. I don't know what you're trying to argue besides "Call everyone a female who has a vagina because I don't care about people and think solidly rooted definitions can't be inaccurate and change, and that this perception matters more than people.

~g2g for now
 
Well, what do you think?

In most areas of life, yes. Largely because gender should not matter. The one example of an exception that comes to mind is sports. Like Fallon Fox. I don't think she should be allowed to fight women. Or is Lebron were to undergo the transformation, I dont think he should be allowed to play in the WNBA.
 
You are using conventional, simplified standards that are only perceived to be correct because they apply to a large percent of the population to classify a minority who wasn't considered when these classifications and sets of nomenclature were brought up. Someone who has a uterus, has a uterus. They likely have a vagina too. It is your prerogative and failure to adapt with definitions, as they always do. Female is subjective. Feminine is subjective. For so long, they have been treated as objective, as so their names have been bled to an actual objective science like Biology. This was done in a time of incomplete understanding of pretty much everything in the world - which was largely ignorant of trans peoples' existence and especially the science behind them. You adapt and die or you don't adapt and die. Either way, society will move on without you. You can be known as the rigid grump or the empathetic gentleman who was on the right side of history.

Don't be a melodramatic and Politically Correct doofus.

If I don't agree with your opinion I am a rigid grump. Negative.
If I do agree with your opinion then I am an empathetic gentleman. Positive.

See how easy it is to identify Political Correctness now?

Conventional simplified standards are all that is required to understand the biology of male/female.

female
: of or relating to the sex that can produce young or lay eggs
: characteristic of girls or women
: having members who are all girls or women


Female | Definition of female by Merriam-Webster

sex
: the state of being male or female
: men or male animals as a group or women or female animals as a group
: physical activity in which people touch each other's bodies, kiss each other, etc. : physical activity that is related to and often includes sexual intercourse


Sex | Definition of sex by Merriam-Webster

Accepting the facts does not make me unempathetic. It simply makes me honest. Actually, I would argue that I am extremely empathetic to their feelings. Some people do not like things about themselves but being untruthful about it does not equate being empathetic by any stretch of the imagination. I do not talk this way to people and if you think that debating an issue at a debate site is like talking to people on the street then you have problems. We are debating an issue and the issue is not "being empathetic" but rather "is a man that thinks he is a woman actually a woman or a man". Stay on point...

I'd say a 250lb 6ft tall man shouldn't be facing a 100lb 5ft fall man in sports, regardless of gender.

When does that happen? Right, it doesn't.

What knowledge base do you have that's beyond philosophical supposition attempted to justify being cruel to people?

I am not attempting to be cruel to people and this is just more evidence of Political Correctness confusing the minds of the intellectual meek... that said, I countered your point logically and you just shot yourself in the foot unless you can share the knowledge base you have that's beyond philosophical supposition in your attempt to be rude to those that disagree with you.

That is the real comedy... you feel free to insult people calling them names when they simply disagree with you confirming that you are really the unempathetic and rude person, not me.

PC is a myth perpetuated by rigid, mean people who think that the natural consequences of going against the grain of society, and more importantly progress, should be met with neutrality or acceptance. They are what they claim to hate. "Accept what I say, don't give me natural consequences of being an ass, and allow me to dismantle your society while you watch in silence."

That is complete and utter crap and if you don't know it you are a part of the problem.

Retarded became Politically Incorrect and was replaced by Mentally Handicapped only to be replaced with Mentally Challenged only to be replaced with Special, or whatever it is now and why? Because people started referring negatively to people they didn't like as Retarded... when the new PC Term came into effect the same jerks started using the new term and that cycle will never end. Well, retarded means what it always meant and referring to a slow person as retarded, although accurate, has now become "cruel" and meets claims like yours, "I just want to be an asshole but you guys keep changing the terms and wont let me so I will attack you by making up a term: Political Correctness."

retarded
adjective, re·tard·ed \ri-ˈtär-dəd\
Definition of RETARDED
: slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress


Retarded | Definition of retarded by Merriam-Webster
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom