• 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
Even most five-year-olds understand the difference between boys and girls. It's obvious.

That you cannot understand what every five-year-old easily can is your problem, not that of those who do understand it.

To claim that a castrated and mutilated man is female is just insane.

Conventionally, yes they can. In accordance with reality, however, almost everything you think you know is extremely nuanced in actuality. Generally, 5-year-olds don't get taught the nuances, and that's because they largely would not understand them.

As I predicted, you ignored the fact that you ignore facts. Ignorance seems to be a comfort zone for debaters of your style.

"That's ridiculous...

...because I've always understood it to be this way...

...because most of everyone has always understood it to be this way...

...because this makes everything so much less simple...

...because it seems like common sense otherwise..."

These are all logical fallacies, Henrin and Bob. Let's instead look at the research, the professional consensus, and be empathetic humans while doing so. I don't know why those things - especially in tandem - seem to be met with such resistance from the right.

And everyone knows basic biology. No one has any qualms with it nor are they disputing it. They are disputing the staunch philosophy of some who interpret the accepted biological facts in a manner that is rigid and illogical.
 
I would call it ****ing ignorant. There comes a time when this liberal "acceptance" crap becomes flat out retarded and calling a castrated man a woman is most definitely retarded.

It's something far beyond merely “****ing ignorant”. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge. To solidly accept as true, something that is so obviously and absurdly untrue, in the face of overwhelming proof that it is untrue, is something else entirely. It is difficult for me to imagine any other explanation but that the person who clings so desperately to such a claim is delusionally insane. It's like staring at the Sun, and denying that it exists, even as it burns one's retinas away.
 
It's something far beyond merely “****ing ignorant”. Ignorance is just a lack of knowledge. To solidly accept as true, something that is so obviously and absurdly untrue, in the face of overwhelming proof that it is untrue, is something else entirely. It is difficult for me to imagine any other explanation but that the person who clings so desperately to such a claim is delusionally insane. It's like staring at the Sun, and denying that it exists, even as it burns one's retinas away.
You seem to throw around "delusional" a lot. So, so many people are just plain delusional I take it. Everyone but you, probably.
 
Conventionally, yes they can. In accordance with reality, however, almost everything you think you know is extremely nuanced in actuality. Generally, 5-year-olds don't get taught the nuances, and that's because they largely would not understand them.
·
·
·​
And everyone knows basic biology. No one has any qualms with it nor are they disputing it. They are disputing the staunch philosophy of some who interpret the accepted biological facts in a manner that is rigid and illogical.

The biological facts are rigid, and it is those who argue against them who are being illogical. Black is black, white is white, male is male, and female is female. That's how it is. This isn't any “staunch philosophy of some who interpret the accepted biological facts”; these are the very facts themselves against which you are arguing. You are arguing against what is clearly, obviously, objectively, the hard, absolute truth. Yours is a “staunch philosophy” that is based in it's entirety on denying obvious truth, and trying to replace it with madness and lies.
 
You seem to throw around "delusional" a lot. So, so many people are just plain delusional I take it. Everyone but you, probably.

To deny what is obviously true, in the face of overwhelming proof that it is true, and in the complete absence of any logical evidence to support that denial, is prima facie proof that one is delusionally insane.

If you choose to argue that male is female, that female is male, then you cannot evade what this clearly tells us about your mental health.

Those, such as yourself, who cannnot grasp the difference between male and female are and will always be a tiny, insignificant minority.
 
Last edited:
The biological facts are rigid, and it is those who argue against them who are being illogical. Black is black, white is white, male is male, and female is female. That's how it is. This isn't any “staunch philosophy of some who interpret the accepted biological facts”; these are the very facts themselves against which you are arguing. You are arguing against what is clearly, obviously, objectively, the hard, absolute truth. Yours is a “staunch philosophy” that is based in it's entirety on denying obvious truth, and trying to replace it with madness and lies.
Black is indeed black, but gender and sex are complex. I know you'd like to believe otherwise for a multitude of fallacious reasons, but the evidence and scientific consensus do not agree with you.

A person who is born with a penis likely is XY, probably has "male" described hormones, etc. etc. No one is debating that. There are no lies. We are debating definitions here. "Male" describes masculinity. You are assuming that certain male qualities outweigh others in that defining process. Biological facts are rigid, but the way we describe them and interpret them are not, inherently.

For example, the physical structure in the brain that determines gender - that could be male. It is also by definition not delusional - because it is accurately describing itself. So why isn't that person male if they have other female described traits? Your philosophy that determines what is most important is what does. And of course this is just a fun concept for you to debate against without having to deal with actual excruciating consequences - like those this debate actually affects.
 
Conventionally, yes they can. In accordance with reality, however, almost everything you think you know is extremely nuanced in actuality. Generally, 5-year-olds don't get taught the nuances, and that's because they largely would not understand them.

As I predicted, you ignored the fact that you ignore facts. Ignorance seems to be a comfort zone for debaters of your style.

"That's ridiculous...

...because I've always understood it to be this way...

...because most of everyone has always understood it to be this way...

...because this makes everything so much less simple...

...because it seems like common sense otherwise..."

These are all logical fallacies, Henrin and Bob. Let's instead look at the research, the professional consensus, and be empathetic humans while doing so. I don't know why those things - especially in tandem - seem to be met with such resistance from the right.

What research are you referring to?

And everyone knows basic biology. No one has any qualms with it nor are they disputing it. They are disputing the staunch philosophy of some who interpret the accepted biological facts in a manner that is rigid and illogical.

How is recognizing that they are not women illogical? Is it because they look like women?
 
To deny what is obviously true, in the face of overwhelming proof that it is true, and in the complete absence of any logical evidence to support that denial, is prima facie proof that one is delusionally insane.

If you choose to argue that male is female, that female is male, then you cannot evade what this clearly tells us about your mental health.

Those, such as yourself, who cannnot grasp the difference between male and female are and will always be a tiny, insignificant minority.
You have no evidence to support your claims, and you are not a professional to diagnose delusions. Overstepping your bounds as usual.

I can differentiate a penis and a vagina, I can differentiate someone who has predominantly testosterone/estrogen, etc. You just don't like that new information and research has brought complexity to what was once deemed a simple subject. This claim is supported by your lack of evidence in the face of tons of evidence on the contrary.
 
Black is indeed black, but gender and sex are complex. I know you'd like to believe otherwise for a multitude of fallacious reasons, but the evidence and scientific consensus do not agree with you.

A person who is born with a penis likely is XY, probably has "male" described hormones, etc. etc. No one is debating that. There are no lies. We are debating definitions here. "Male" describes masculinity. You are assuming that certain male qualities outweigh others in that defining process. Biological facts are rigid, but the way we describe them and interpret them are not, inherently.

For example, the physical structure in the brain that determines gender - that could be male. It is also by definition not delusional - because it is accurately describing itself. So why isn't that person male if they have other female described traits? Your philosophy that determines what is most important is what does. And of course this is just a fun concept for you to debate against without having to deal with actual excruciating consequences - like those this debate actually affects.

:lol: so what it means to be a man or woman is just a social construct.... but how we look at ethnicity isn't.....

:lol: yeah. that makes sense. :)
 
For example, the physical structure in the brain that determines gender - that could be male. It is also by definition not delusional - because it is accurately describing itself. So why isn't that person male if they have other female described traits? Your philosophy that determines what is most important is what does. And of course this is just a fun concept for you to debate against without having to deal with actual excruciating consequences - like those this debate actually affects.

You do realize that the researchers can not explain people that are not transgender and yet have the so called brain chemistry of the opposite sex, right. Do you know why? I'm guessing because the conclusion is wrong. You?
 
You have no evidence to support your claims, and you are not a professional to diagnose delusions. Overstepping your bounds as usual.

I can differentiate a penis and a vagina, I can differentiate someone who has predominantly testosterone/estrogen, etc. You just don't like that new information and research political correctness, and an increasing demand that blatant immorality, evil, and madness be normalized and accepted as proper has brought complexity to what was once deemed a simple subject. This claim is supported by your lack of evidence in the face of tons of evidence on the contrary the efforts of evil and insane people to force society to accept their lies and madness as if they haves any vestige validity.

Fixed it for you.

May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on those who allow the likes of you to tell them what to think and believe.
 
What research are you referring to?



How is recognizing that they are not women illogical? Is it because they look like women?
There is research that shows that gender identity is manifested in a physical section of the brain while within the womb. This means that a person's brain can be developed to be described as female while maintaining typically male described body parts and such. You are asserting that you know what is most important in defining maleness and femaleness, which is philosophy not science.

I'm on my phone so I can't search too well but this is probably useful: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302211000252
 
Fixed it for you.

May Laurence Tureaud have compassion on those who allow the likes of you to tell them what to think and believe.
Political correctness is simply not a real thing, and I hold no stock in fearmongering bordering on conspiracy theories. Different debate for a different time I suppose though.
 
[emoji38] so what it means to be a man or woman is just a social construct.... but how we look at ethnicity isn't.....

[emoji38] yeah. that makes sense. :)
Didn't say being a man or woman was a social construct, nor did I imply it. The typical social ROLES associated with such are, however.
 
There is research that shows that gender identity is manifested in a physical section of the brain while within the womb. This means that a person's brain can be developed to be described as female while maintaining typically male described body parts and such. You are asserting that you know what is most important in defining maleness and femaleness, which is philosophy not science.

I'm on my phone so I can't search too well but this is probably useful: Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders

No, I'm saying there is a huge gaping hole in that theory that they can't explain. How do you explain men with what they are describing as a female brain and yet aren't transgender? Well?
 
No, I'm saying there is a huge gaping hole in that theory that they can't explain.
I don't know of the supposed hole, but I'll leave it up to the professionals to decipher.

Either way, when there is some uncertainty as you claim, I can't see how you justify to yourself claiming that people simply, factually are not what they say when this is such a widespread phenomena and factually not delusional. It's not logical and it's just mean.
 
I don't know of the supposed hole, but I'll leave it up to the professionals to decipher.

Either way, when there is some uncertainty as you claim, I can't see how you justify to yourself claiming that people simply, factually are not what they say when this is such a widespread phenomena and factually not delusional. It's not logical and it's just mean.

They can't figure it out. Again, I suspect the reason for this is because their conclusion is wrong.

Regardless, the theory basically says that there was not enough testosterone present at the time of development leaving the brain as female, which means that the individual is in fact male, but they are suffering from a developmental issue.

The fact that you associate a developmental problem with them actually being female is just stupid.
 
Last edited:
Yes. I believe the following speaks for itself:

“I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”

Fox’s “grip was different,” Brents added. “I could usually move around in the clinch against…females but couldn’t move at all in Fox’s clinch.”

In 2013, after a 39-second knockout victory, Fox’s fifth straight first-round victory, it was revealed that Fox had not told the MMA community about her sex-change operation, which took place in 2006.

That person should never set foot in the ring again. Not revealing something so important should be criminal.

She should be personally sued and criminally charged...
 
Didn't say being a man or woman was a social construct, nor did I imply it. The typical social ROLES associated with such are, however.

Sure. They are, however, roles built upon a biological basis. Try as they might, no man is going to get pregnant.

The point simply is that the leap between ethnicity is a switch between something much more ethereal, and much less based in basic biological differentiation. If a man can become a woman, that is a much bigger shift than a white person becoming a black person, or a native American becoming a Somali.
 
Yes, because calling someone who is a girl "she" with quotation marks is a sign of respect. It's totally not mocking. Keep making yourself believe in things that aren't true; seems to be going well for you.

She is not a "girl"... :roll:

My hurt feelings? Yes, my feelings are so hurt as someone who isn't a transgender person. And clearly because I'm arguing for human decency in relation to OTHER people, this is about MY feelings. It has everything to do with being empathetic to the individual at hand, and this is coming from someone who didn't deliberately try to disrespect her and other transgender people. I'd say that someone arguing on the side who HAS done such a non-human thing would have no rational basis for which to argue with, but rather a heap of emotional bias.

So you are saying that being critical of a man fighting in a woman's sport is not being empathetic to that individual as a person?

We both know this topic came up and is being presented the way it is in order to push a fear-mongering agenda, and you can deny or admit the truth but it remains the same.

Wrong... it is not a fear mongering agenda. It is about being honest.

Encouraging others to not act in ways that causes people severe distress is definitely coddling too. For sure. Keep telling yourself that so that you can stay mad that there are large movements that have nothing to do with you and are therefore unnecessary and indulgent in your mind.

At least you aren't calling those that you disagree with bigots...
 
All of your posts about transgenderism, including this one, hinge on the disingenuous assertion that gender is inherently sex, which is largely false, and even if you were to criticize the sizable evidence base, you'd still likely conclude that it's "more than likely" false if you were to evaluate it honestly.

With little doubt that this is false in all factual regards, there is no excuse to blatantly disregard someone's feelings and disrespect them on the basis that you have a hunch which goes against the evidence that, quite frankly, dismantles your worldview.

In short, you, day by day, discredit evidence and professional consensus and replace these with suppositions and your own singular personal opinion so as to avoid the various conflicts within your line of reasoning.

A eunuch is a man whose genitals have been removed. This woman, however, is not a man, by the most updated, accurate, professionally described version of the definition. Will you acknowledge this? Of course not. And to add you'll act like this one (largely unimportant) instance where we don't exactly know how the issue should be dealt with is some testament against the very principal of accepting the aforementioned facts.

Evidence? He is a man.

Professional consensus? Is best guess... nobody is a "professional" when it comes to this subject.

As I predicted, you ignored the fact that you ignore facts. Ignorance seems to be a comfort zone for debaters of your style.

Facts? The FACT is that a male is born a male and a male is a man and a man can NOT be a woman. That is the only fact that is relevant.

You seem to throw around "delusional" a lot.

This is an argument about people that are potentially delusional so that actually makes a lot of sense...

So, so many people are just plain delusional I take it. Everyone but you, probably.

Everyone but you equates to a delusional thought process...
 
Political correctness is simply not a real thing, and I hold no stock in fearmongering bordering on conspiracy theories. Different debate for a different time I suppose though.

OMG! I wish I had read this post first... political correctness not a real thing? What a load of horse ****.
 
Yes, because calling someone who is a girl "she" with quotation marks is a sign of respect. It's totally not mocking.

Would you rather I just used HE then?

Actually, it is grasping at straws. It's an otherwise pretty dull story with some small micro-arguments to be had about it turned into a fear-mongering argument relating to trasngenderism as a whole, as usual with the slippery slope right. The only difference is that the slippery slopes are becoming more and more veiled and implicit.

What are you even talking about? This thread has a lot of discussion about MTF trans people competing in women's sporting events. Of course the SJW stance is that hormone therapy is all that really matters, or that women are just as strong/fast/good as men at sports, or that it shouldn't matter anyway. The news story I posted is a perfect example of why that is simply NOT true, and it's a current event that just happened. It is very relevant to the discussion here.

Nice one though for once again making it all about "muh feels".

My hurt feelings? Yes, my feelings are so hurt as someone who isn't a transgender person. And clearly because I'm arguing for human decency in relation to OTHER people, this is about MY feelings. It has everything to do with being empathetic to the individual at hand, and this is coming from someone who didn't deliberately try to disrespect her and other transgender people.

So in other words, you came into a thread titled "Should Transwomen Be Legally Treated As Women", where a lot of discussion was about sporting events and how to deal with that, and jumped all over somebody using quotation marks around "she" because he posted a news article about a MTF beating the absolute piss out of a woman in a MMA fight. You're just defending the poor oppressed helpless ones from your position of infinite privilege though and don't have any personal feelings about it. I see.

I'd say that someone arguing on the side who HAS done such a non-human thing would have no rational basis for which to argue with, but rather a heap of emotional bias.

Such a NON-HUMAN THING? Good lord. Yeah, saying "she" instead of she is so non-human. Gosh. How ever will I be able to sleep tonight knowing I am so awful? :roll:

We both know this topic came up and is being presented the way it is in order to push a fear-mongering agenda, and you can deny or admit the truth but it remains the same.

A news article popped up in my feed, it was related to this thread, so I posted it. It's not fear mongering, it's evidence that MTF should not be competing in sporting events against women. WTF mate?

Seems like a sound hypothesis. It totally takes into account the fact that the majority of "SJWs" are NOT in the need of social justice.

Hey, you're right again. They are in need of a soap box to push their perpetually offended BS agendas.

I, being a non-trans white male, surely am being selfish while arguing for rights of others that don't relate to me.

Yeah, so noble arguing for their RIGHTS to get into a ring with actual women and beat the living crap out of them. They are definitely SO OPPRESSED without that. :roll:

Encouraging others to not act in ways that causes people severe distress is definitely coddling too. For sure. Keep telling yourself that so that you can stay mad that there are large movements that have nothing to do with you and are therefore unnecessary and indulgent in your mind.

Again, putting quotation marks on "she" is not the end of the world. If that causes someone "severe distress", I'd refer them to the last 3 words in my sig.
 
So in other words, you came into a thread titled "Should Transwomen Be Legally Treated As Women", where a lot of discussion was about sporting events and how to deal with that, and jumped all over somebody using quotation marks around "she" because he posted a news article about a MTF beating the absolute piss out of a woman in a MMA fight. You're just defending the poor oppressed helpless ones from your position of infinite privilege though and don't have any personal feelings about it. I see.

Don't you mean because, "he" posted a news article...

Again, putting quotation marks on "she" is not the end of the world. If that causes someone "severe distress", I'd refer them to the last 3 words in my sig.

How offensive! Telling "her" to grow a pair when she just had them cut off... you are not empathetic.
 
Back
Top Bottom