Is Transgenderism a choice?

[joko104]

well that would be an INSANE question that has no logical or rational merit to ask of me lol
everything i said in my post is factual

if you disagree point out the false part and fctually prove it

Since your messages often assert a truism declaring it a self proving truism - to claim a person who becomes a transgender at age 67 was a transgender the second that person was born - and your poof is claiming that therefore makes it a self proving fact - there is no debate. Rather, from what I see, you post assertions your messages claim are self proving truisms and restating the assertion repeatedly is debating. That is not what I see as a debate where you assert a fact and declare is inherently true unless I disprove it. That's not how debate works.

As I stated before, your messages intermix being transgender with transsexual as if they are the same, and those two words and personages are not the same.

 

[joko104]

This is so well put, right up to the end until you had to throw rights into it. Rights don't exist. There is only freedom, and the one that would keep you from it. It's wrong to keep anyone from being free by use of force. Unfortunately, some special groups, including the ones in the subject of this thread, want to use force to keep people from being free to choose whom they associate with.

I don't understand your distinction. Between "rights" and "freedom." If you think I mean "rights given by or protected by government," I do not. Is it more core than that. Every living creature has a right, unto itself, to be what it is. Humans, because of inner voice or higher mental capacity, can reach out well beyond the base instincts we were born with - why we can have a civilization, rule of law, vast group efforts, governments and more. Of course, the saying goes that "your right end before they hit my nose." There can be a fundamental clash between creatures and between people - and always will be. Indeed, life of the food chain is dependent upon such clashes - all lethal.

So call it the "freedom" or "right" (pick-a-word) to dress, act like and see yourself as male or female as to "gender" - until it clashes too negatively against counter rights. For example, in my view that right of a man to "feel like a woman" - and therefore he can hang out in a bathroom stall in a remote, unpoliced park bathroom with a cell phone to take videos with or a legal knife in his pocket he could jump any girl or woman with is such a clash. Therefore, the not only can that freedom right of the man be cancelled, exercising it can even be criminalized.

Maybe I missed your distinction between "freedom" and "rights." If so and if you wish, clarify the distinction.

 

[Anarchon]

I don't understand your distinction. Between "rights" and "freedom." If you think I mean "rights given by or protected by government," I do not. Is it more core than that. Every living creature has a right, unto itself, to be what it is. Humans, because of inner voice or higher mental capacity, can reach out well beyond the base instincts we were born with - why we can have a civilization, rule of law, vast group efforts, governments and more. Of course, the saying goes that "your right end before they hit my nose." There can be a fundamental clash between creatures and between people - and always will be. Indeed, life of the food chain is dependent upon such clashes - all lethal.

So call it the "freedom" or "right" (pick-a-word) to dress, act like and see yourself as male or female as to "gender" - until it clashes too negatively against counter rights. For example, in my view that right of a man to "feel like a woman" - and therefore he can hang out in a bathroom stall in a remote, unpoliced park bathroom with a cell phone to take videos with or a legal knife in his pocket he could jump any girl or woman with is such a clash. Therefore, the not only can that freedom right of the man be cancelled, exercising it can even be criminalized.

Maybe I missed your distinction between "freedom" and "rights." If so and if you wish, clarify the distinction.

You don't understand me, and I don't understand you. I've distilled it as simply as I can. There is only freedom and the man who would take it away from you. There is no such thing as rights. What you describe is muddled with entitlement and pre-crime, both of which involve taking freedom away from another man.

 

[CLAX1911]

Few people will ever buy the claim that anyone is a bigot because of who a person will or won't have a sexual relationship with.

I've often pointed out there is a major flaw in "LGTB" - because heterosexuals and homosexuals both equally "discrimination" (have no attraction to) half the population - which is diametrically opposite from bisexuals and has no relationship to trans issues, which are not about what sex (biological) a person is attracted to as trans can be straight, gay or bi.

Unfortunately, most people allow the MSM, press and interest groups to define issues for them - and then just blindly accept those and the issues and accept how people are stereotyped into various pigeon holes.

Generally, gay rights activist groups are EXTREMELY intolerant of even any of their own members or gays having any other views the that the activist group is claiming are the dare-not-question-or-your-a-homophobe-truisms of this month.

I've actually run across a group of people that call themselves GGTOW.

 

[CLAX1911]

Please look up what OCD really is. Its not funny, or quirky. Its a destructive disorder.

He's just pulling your leg don't take it so seriously.

 

[HowardBThiname]

I, personally, feel the question regarding homosexuality is settled. It isn’t a choice any more than being hetero is. I’m not as sure with regard to being trans. From my extremely limited perspective, there seems to be a lot of choice involved but I don’t think people undertake changing their physical gender lightly. Can this even be answered by a simple yes or no?

I don't think it's a choice, but undergoing surgery to change genders is a choice.

 

[X Factor]

It should be called CDO. That's the alphabetical order, as it should be.

Then it would be Compulsive Disorder Obsessive.

 

[X Factor]

Shut up. OCD ain't funny. I literally suffer from it.

I have it too but the CDO thing is a harmless joke. It like that joke bumper sticker, “Dyslexics of the world untie.” Nothing to get upset about.

 

[SDET]

Trans women want desperately to be seen as women and to be accepted as women but generally speaking lesbians aren't going to because they're not.

We see the same thing with straight men and trans women. Men do not see a trans woman is the same thing as a woman. Pre-op or post-op is not relevant in most cases. They simply are not and never will be women in regards to the straight men who don't want a relationship with a trans woman or lesbian women who don't want a relationship with a trans woman.

I've seen activists try and claim that this is violence and it's transphobia and so on so forth to try and shame people into having sexual relationships with people they do not want to have sexual relationships with.

This is going to backfire

I have heard this described as "writing a check against it". There are lots of men that have no desire to interfere with a "trans-woman". Most of those would not buy a Playboy magazine with "trans-women" in it nor show any interest in a "trans-woman". How do you suppose Hugh Hefner would have approached "trans-women" if he were alive and 40 years younger?

 

[SDET]

I have it too but the CDO thing is a harmless joke. It like that joke bumper sticker, “Dyslexics of the world untie.” Nothing to get upset about.

I like a quip/story about Aspergers: This Aspie went to McDonald's and the cashier asked if he would like to eat it "here". He replied, "No, I would like to eat at one of those tables over there".

 

[AGENT J]

Since your messages often assert a truism declaring it a self proving truism - to claim a person who becomes a transgender at age 67 was a transgender the second that person was born - and your poof is claiming that therefore makes it a self proving fact - there is no debate. Rather, from what I see, you post assertions your messages claim are self proving truisms and restating the assertion repeatedly is debating. That is not what I see as a debate where you assert a fact and declare is inherently true unless I disprove it. That's not how debate works.

As I stated before, your messages intermix being transgender with transsexual as if they are the same, and those two words and personages are not the same.

good thing i didnt actual say any of that crap, thats your mistake for makign it up in your head and illogical and baseless assuming such LMAO
i repeat, in the post you quoted of mine everything i said was fact if you disagree point out the false part and factually prove it wrong. it cant be done.

 

[roguenuke]

that is subjective.

when they are adults yes when they are children no they are not capable of making those decisions.

I absolutely disagree you have to set boundaries for a child. They have to have a rule book in which to grow up with otherwise they grow up without understanding simple things. I agree nurture is not everything but it does have profound effects on a child this is no mystery this is no phenomenon It is Well documented.

If a child decides they want to be the opposite sex they can do that when they are an adult.

Children are perfectly capable of making some of these decisions (not about medically changing, no), but they can easily figure out their feelings if given a chance. Far too many adults underestimate children.

Rule books for raising children are subjective. You cannot show that it is objectively better to force a kid to be raised as a girl when they feel they are a boy or vice versa. It should be done after some discussions, especially with a child psychologist who specializes in such things. But it shouldn't be ignored or suppressed just because some think it isn't right.

They should be able to start living as the opposite sex when they feel they are ready. Clothes don't mean anything, even a name or how they identify can be changed if they do figure out that is not the issue.

 

[roguenuke]

This is so well put, right up to the end until you had to throw rights into it. Rights don't exist. There is only freedom, and the one that would keep you from it. It's wrong to keep anyone from being free by use of force. Unfortunately, some special groups, including the ones in the subject of this thread, want to use force to keep people from being free to choose whom they associate with.

This is not true. You are not required to "associate" with either transgender or gay people. In fact, you are free in many aspects of your life to call them names or be disrespectful to them in ways that you could also legally be to others.

There are always some limits on who you have to or don't have to associate with, and in what matter, though. Especially in places like your job or legal matters.

 

[Atheist 2020]

It only became a choice when medicine and doctors had the ability to perform the surgery.

 

[roguenuke]

How do you determine when they are ready? I know from raising my own kids that they come up with all kinds of ideas about themselves. I do not and did not encourage many of those ideas because they were and are still kids. Children's brains are not fully developed and they develop at different rates. perhaps it ends up that the kid was right, more than likely they will learn that they were wrong about many things they thought while growing up. So yes, in a certain percentage children who live as the opposite sex will be happy. What about the ones who ended up not being happy? Perhaps a childs reasoning for being the opposite sex isnt always the same. If the change happened before puberty I question the social influences more than an biological need. Up until puberty children are only living out the influences of the adults in their life. Stereotypical gender clothing and what not are and have been ignored by heterosexuals. Many girls enjoyed playing games and wearing pants, in the old days they were called tomboys. They were not transgendered they just found that typical gender rolls were restrictive or many other reasons. It would be harmful to teach girls that being a tomboy means that they are transgendered. Or that if a boy plays with dolls or liked pink that they are transgendered.

As a parent part of your job is to teach and guide your child. Letting your child make a decision long before they have the ability to make a decision that important seems wrong to me. Of course I am biased since I have a daughter who decided that she was a lesbian (which I didnt tell her that was wrong or a bad choice or much of anything other than its her choice) who is now happily engaged to her boyfriend. Sure its anecdotal to everyone but myself and my family, but still I cannot get past that bias. At least for some it is a choice. And it is wrong to say that it isnt a choice for everyone. Perhaps it isnt a choice for some but that doesnt really matter for adults.

You talk to them. Discuss it with them. Kids don't simply come up with ideas like that out of nowhere. It may be that they just see someone being treated differently due to their gender or it could be that they really feel that way. You can talk to kids and get that info from them. Many kids are pretty open about things like that. Just talk to them. It isn't really that hard. I talk to my kids all the time about various ideas they have and discuss pretty grown up topics at their level of understanding. Ask them questions about how they feel and what might have led them to feel that way. What do they think might help them.

Like I said before, people underestimate kids and how much they understand.

 

[roguenuke]

I question if you know the difference between transgender and transsexual. Transgender is only about social norms and current era gender stereotyping. "Gender" identity is 100% defined by the society and culture the person is in at the time.

Transsexual is about biological sex, sex organs and the person's physical sex - wanting their body to match the oppose sex. That is an identical constant in every society and culture across all of human history.

Again, few transgenders even by their own telling of themselves are NOT transsexual. Most - all actually - I've known are gay in that they have sex with someone of their identical biological sex. The only exception to that has been "cross dressers and some drag queens - a very different topic entirely. That nearly all transgender have same-sex relationships strongly suggests it is not a born trait, as most women by way prefer relationships and sex with men, while biological males who are transgender will have a relationship and sex with other men.

Nearly all transsexuals are also transgender - though in this in terms of sex may be gay, straight or bi - and the few I've known if biologically (dna) male both before and after the SRS surgery seek male lovers and relationship - nearly always opposite from transgender who do not want SRS surgery.

For tactical reasons, both gay rights activists and trans activist want people to think that the words "gender" and "sex" of a person means the same thing - and those 2 words do not mean the same thing at all.

This does not describe my sister who is transgender. First, she is a lesbian, she is attracted to women. Transsexual is a person who has gone through the surgery (generally) but who started as transgender in most cases (could still be seen as transgender. Transgender people may go through the entire surgery, only parts of the process to change, or none at all, simply live as the opposite sex as their birth.

And no, it is not true that all or even most LGBT or their supporters view sex and gender as the same thing. In fact, more often than not, the problem is that some who are against transgender and/or transsexual people cannot see the difference between sex and gender.

 

[roguenuke]

It should be called CDO. That's the alphabetical order, as it should be.

Command duty officer?

 

[ecofarm]

That I don't get at all. There are two genders, in humans anyway.

Gender is much more than biological sex. That's really an absurdly ignorant grasp of gender. If it meant biological sex, why invent another term? First, in it's simplest sense, it does refer to biological sex but is not an equivalence.

Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e., the state of being male, female, or an intersex variation), sex-based social structures (i.e., gender roles), or gender identity.[1][2][3] Traditionally, people who do identify as men or women or use masculine or feminine gender pronouns are using a system of gender binary whereas those who exist outside these groups fall under the umbrella terms non-binary or genderqueer. Some cultures have specific gender roles that are distinct from "man" and "woman," such as the hijras of South Asia. These are often referred to as third genders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Further, gender extends beyond biological sex. Gender is any category that carries social expectations or gender roles. Young and old are genders. Orientation, hetero and gay, are genders.

 

[CLAX1911]

Children are perfectly capable of making some of these decisions (not about medically changing, no), but they can easily figure out their feelings if given a chance.

I disagree children are far too easily influenced by others to be able to figure out these feelings.

Rule books for raising children are subjective. You cannot show that it is objectively better to force a kid to be raised as a girl when they feel they are a boy or vice versa.

raising a boy as a girl or vice versa is child abuse.

It should be done after some discussions, especially with a child psychologist who specializes in such things. But it shouldn't be ignored or suppressed just because some think it isn't right.

I think we should to be aware of psychologists they are the ones that invented this.

I don't think suppression of certain expressions should be suppressed but that doesn't make a girl into a boy or vice versa.

They should be able to start living as the opposite sex when they feel they are ready.

I disagree.

Clothes don't mean anything, even a name or how they identify can be changed if they do figure out that is not the issue.

If it's not an issue then there's no such thing as trans. Transgenderism makes it an issue.

 

[Anarchon]

This is not true. You are not required to "associate" with either transgender or gay people.

Tell that to the dude baking them a cake.

 

[roguenuke]

Tell that to the dude baking them a cake.

That same dude is required to make cakes for black people or white people getting married (cannot refuse to bake a cake based on race), Christians or Jews or Muslims or even atheists getting married (cannot refuse based on religion), or even mixed race couples getting married. So that would be requiring some association with certain people, in regards to running a business open to the public.

 

[roguenuke]

I disagree children are far too easily influenced by others to be able to figure out these feelings.

raising a boy as a girl or vice versa is child abuse.

I think we should to be aware of psychologists they are the ones that invented this.

I don't think suppression of certain expressions should be suppressed but that doesn't make a girl into a boy or vice versa.

I disagree.

If it's not an issue then there's no such thing as trans. Transgenderism makes it an issue.

These are all your opinions about it, and despite your opinion on "child abuse" in these situations, that is not part of any law within the US.

And once again, you underestimate children.

 

[Anarchon]

That same dude is required to make cakes for black people or white people getting married (cannot refuse to bake a cake based on race), Christians or Jews or Muslims or even atheists getting married (cannot refuse based on religion), or even mixed race couples getting married. So that would be requiring some association with certain people, in regards to running a business open to the public.

It's forcing an association. That guy should be able to refuse to sell stuff to anyone for any reason whatsoever, or no reason at all. That's called freedom. You can't have it both ways, even though in your head, you are trying to.

 

[CLAX1911]

These are all your opinions about it, and despite your opinion on "child abuse" in these situations, that is not part of any law within the US.

my opinions are based on first and foremost boys are not girls and vice versa. A boy can't be a house cat he can't be a painting he can't be a girl and he never will be. Supporting this delusion is robbing that child of a firm grasp on reality. And this illness has a massive suicide rate nobody within their right mind should encourage this.

Further just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not abusive. In many places it's legal to put your child in conversion therapy but I view that as abusive as well.

And once again, you underestimate children.

Because I think it's wrong to indulge a delusion? How is that under estimating children? That statement makes no sense.

 

[roguenuke]

my opinions are based on first and foremost boys are not girls and vice versa. A boy can't be a house cat he can't be a painting he can't be a girl and he never will be. Supporting this delusion is robbing that child of a firm grasp on reality. And this illness has a massive suicide rate nobody within their right mind should encourage this.

Further just because something is legal doesn't mean it's not abusive. In many places it's legal to put your child in conversion therapy but I view that as abusive as well.


Because I think it's wrong to indulge a delusion? How is that under estimating children? That statement makes no sense.

But that is still your opinion on what makes a boy a boy or a girl a girl.

A human is not biologically capable of having house cat DNA in their body or developing in a way that would lead them to be mistaken for a house cat, but they can develop or contain DNA of the opposite sex.

Conversion therapy can be shown to be abusive, allowing a child to live as the opposite sex cannot be shown to be abusive from a reasonable person standpoint.

To you it is a delusion, but in reality, you have no way to know how they feel. And it does not hurt them (yet has been shown to help them) live as the opposite sex as their birth. If it cannot be shown to do harm, then it shouldn't matter if they do it and even later change their minds.