Transgender: Biological or Belief?

I had an interesting conversation with The Arbourist that started here and ended here, about the nature of transgender people. You can read the full discussion by following the links, but suffice to say that he believes that transgender people hold a set of beliefs or ideologies and that transgender is not biological in nature but a belief:

Transgender: the belief that one “feels” like the opposite sex

this is fundamentally impossible without the assumption that male and female minds are biologically wired to conform to gender (aka stereotypes) which is demonstrably untrue and incredibly sexist

When I asked about the ideologies a transgender would hold (even writing it sounds ridiculous) he posted this:

Robert Jenson –

“Transgender is defined as “A term for people whose gender identity, expression or behavior is different from those typically associated with their assigned sex at birth.” The transgender movement rejects the automatic sorting of males and females into the categories of man and woman, but does not necessarily reject gender roles. Some in the transgender movement embrace patriarchal gender roles typically attached to the cultural categories of masculinity and femininity.

While not all people who identify as transgender have sex-reassignment surgery or use hormones or other treatments to modify their bodies, the transgender movement as a whole accepts and/or embraces these practices.”

“Transgenderism is a liberal, individualist, medicalized response to the problem of patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms. “

After this I pointed out that the ideologies he referred to seemed to be more about the ideologies of radical feminists than about transgender people, such as that ‘some in the transgender movement embrace patriarchal gender roles’.

The transgender person is just existing. By their mere existence, they are contradicting the ideologies held by the self-professed radical feminist.

It reminds me of how an ethical atheist, by virtue of their mere existence, contradicts the ideology that you need to be religious to be a good person.

I also hate to break it to you, but there are a lot of males and females who embrace gender roles as well. It’s not just a transgender thing.

In fact, if you read the beginning of the conversation, he actually makes the analogy that transgender is the same as a religion. When I questioned him about this, he said:

@GC

“So you see cis and trans as a belief system similar to a religion?”

Enough rough parallels to make a go of it. Sure, why not? If it helps in comprehending the objections to trans-ideology.

In that same comment he said:

There is no hate for Trans people here – my quarrel rests with their ideology. A) Because it erases women and their struggle in society and B) it makes specious claims about sex and gender that are not supported by evidence.

So now that I’ve laid the groundwork, are his claims true? Is transgender merely a belief or is it based on biology?

It turns out that preliminary research on transgender people show that it might be biologically driven and not a belief at all:

DR. JOSHUA SAFER, Boston University: In most people, chromosomes, body parts, gender identity align. So, somebody with a male chromosome, somebody with male body parts is going to have male gender identity. That is the usual circumstance.

All of these are independently controlled biologically, and therefore it is no surprise that, in a given subset of the population, one part is not aligned, that whatever genes are controlling that happen to be different for that individual, and that’s what’s happening with transgender individuals.

Or this:

Their results, published in 2013, showed that even before treatment the brain structures of the trans people were more similar in some respects to the brains of their experienced gender than those of their natal gender. For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)

“Trans people have brains that are different from males and females, a unique kind of brain,” Guillamon says. “It is simplistic to say that a female-to-male transgender person is a female trapped in a male body. It’s not because they have a male brain but a transsexual brain.” Of course, behavior and experience shape brain anatomy, so it is impossible to say if these subtle differences are inborn.

Or this:

Medical care of transgender patients, including surgical and hormonal treatment, has largely been met with resistance by physicians in favor of psychiatric treatment, owing to misconceptions that gender identity can be changed. According to a review article in Endocrine Practice, there is increasing evidence of a biological basis for gender identity that may change physicians’ perspective on transgender medicine and improve health care for these patients.

The arguments The Arbourist was making are the same sorts of arguments religious people made to deny same-sex couples their rights – they would tell people that their sexual orientation was just a belief, and therefore they didn’t deserve the same protections heterosexual people enjoyed.

There are no ideologies or set of beliefs specifically associated with being transgender, gay, heterosexual etc, and the evidence points towards transgender being biological in nature and not a belief at all.

Advertisements

103 Comments

  1. @GC

    *sigh*

    Define the term “man” and “woman”.

    If you get farther than adult human male and adult human female, or use the terms identifies with, or feels like – you shouldn’t be arguing with me, but rather a biologist. 🙂

    “The arguments The Arbourist was making are the same sorts of arguments religious people made to deny same-sex couples their rights – “

    Really? Which rights *specifically* are being denied by adhering to the biological reality of our species.

    I am in support of the rights and freedoms of people who identify themselves as trans. When trans people, or other people make arguments that are not based on fact, it is well within reasonable expectations to disagree with them.

    I disagree with them when they claim they are the opposite sex, because as of today biological sex is immutable constant for our species.

    Kindly note that this is a disagreement; The argument for human sexual dimorphism is backed by observable, scientific fact.

    “There are no ideologies or set of beliefs specifically associated with being transgender gay […]

    So what does queer theory address?

    Hmmm – “Queer theory is a multilayered, and rather complex, field of study. To assign a single-sentence definition to this theory would be incomplete as it would fail to touch on the various ways it is interpreted, applicable and used. In particular, Queer Theory’s overreaching goal is to be sought out as a lens or tool to deconstruct the existing monolithic ideals of social norms and taxonomies; as well as, how these norms came into being and why

    Yes, queer theory reasonably fits the bill of a set of beliefs, or ideology that is associated with being gay and/or transgender.

    ” but suffice to say that he believes that transgender people hold a set of beliefs or ideologies and that transgender is not biological in nature but a belief”

    Social constructs, of which gender is one, are beliefs.

    We may have to take this argument back quite a bit to be sure a grasp of fundamental sociological concepts exists, so the argument can continue forward reasonably.

    • Specifically that gay people aren’t “born” gay- as if that made any difference. The point is people’s psyche evolves in a particular direction, so whether it’s 45.28% genetic or 64.5% genetic is entirely irrelevant. The point is people exist. Gay people exist, lesbians exist, and even bisexual and transgender people exist.

      You’re not talking about “facts”, you’re trying to find a angle by which it’s acceptable to treat transgender people as *less than*, and that’s simply disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.

      • @Mr.M

        “You’re not talking about “facts”, you’re trying to find a angle by which it’s acceptable to treat transgender people as *less than*, and that’s simply disgraceful and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

        There is nothing in the statements I have made that would indicate that I think TG people should be treated as “less than”.

        Unless of course, you think that disagreeing with someone over their world view is wrong.

        In that case, I think you should probably apologize to SoM for attacking his christian world-view, immediately, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

        Disagreement is not disrespect.

        • You mean when you make associations of trans people to rapists, you do it out of the kindness of your heart? Out of respect?
          SoM is allowed his world view. He’s also allowed to apply it to his *own life*. The same way a Muslim or Jew can reject pork, but can’t force other free citizens to do so. Or how a vegan can be vegan but can’t ban the sale of meat. Your vision is one of authoritarianism. One where you dictate to other people what gender is or isn’t and how people *must* live it. I suppose you missed that crucial part of history we call The Enlightenment. The period where the concept of individual liberties was so beautifully framed.

    • ” When trans people, or other people make arguments that are not based on fact, it is well within reasonable expectations to disagree with them.”

      What argument are they making? What are you referring to?

      “I disagree with them when they claim they are the opposite sex, because as of today biological sex is immutable constant for our species.”

      I just showed you it has a lot to do with biology and the brain.

      You pretend like they just woke up one day and shrugged and decided to become a transgender. It’s ridiculous.

      “Hmmm – “Queer theory is a multilayered, and rather complex, field of study. To assign a single-sentence definition to this theory would be incomplete as it would fail to touch on the various ways it is interpreted, applicable and used. In particular, Queer Theory’s overreaching goal is to be sought out as a lens or tool to deconstruct the existing monolithic ideals of social norms and taxonomies; as well as, how these norms came into being and why”

      So you believe that transgender are born and because they’re transgender, they immediately buy into queer theory?

      It’s a field of study. Not an ideology like religion.

    • @Judyt54

      “You can’t tell me that a three year old kid is working out ideologies…”

      I’m not. Those are GC’s conclusions and not mine. Three year old’s are not up for making any decisions about their gender.

      What they like to wear, or play with should not render unto them what gender box we should put them into.

      Nor should what they wear or how they act later in adolescence push them into one set of toxic stereotypes or another.

      Realizing that gender is a hierarchy and is bad for both women and men should point to the problem being the system of gender and not people simply acting how they want and feel.

      Abolish gender, and free the people.

        • @Mr.M

          “So individual’s don’t get to interpret what their gender is or how to live it-

          Well, that’s a rather jaundiced view. Do you have a particular animus toward people who decide that gender non-conforming behaviour will be their choice?

          “The Arbourist decides what to abolish, when to abolish it, and really how each free tax paying citizen should live their lives. “

          You certainly seem to have a lot invested in maintaining the gender hierarchy. I’m not really sure how that work, as I’ve read much of your writing and you seem to be on board with feminism and what not.

          So, rather than working to minimize and abolish the gender hierarchy – the one that divides us into a dominant and submissive classes, the one that justifies toxic male behaviour and condones the abuse of females – what would you suggest?

          Some equality perhaps? But addressing the system that is at the root of said inequality gets your hackles up?

          What gives? 🙂

      • kids will tell you very early on that they are a little boy or a little girl, and can be quite firm about it. If you insist that they are a boy and they insist they are a girl, then you need to consider the next steps. It does not mean they were forced or pushed into one set of identifiers, it does mean they are having problems connecting the outside to the insides. That must be dreadful.

        Gender is who we were in the womb, excuse ME. good heavens. We only have two main identifiers in this “system”, male and female. It may branch out in several different ways, but at heart some of us have vaginas (those are the girls, btw) and some have penises. Those are the boys. But sometimes the brain gets the wrong signals, as to who owns what. You have to wonder how many hundreds of generations of men and women spend their days behaving one way and feeling another…

        • @judyt54

          ” If you insist that they are a boy and they insist they are a girl, then you need to consider the next steps.”

          Absolutely. There are a options. Becoming a gender non-conforming male or female, transgender, or a homosexual for instance.

          “It does not mean they were forced or pushed into one set of identifiers,”

          Really. Gendered socialization begins pretty much at birth and continues through childhood. There is nothing innate about it.

          “Gender is who we were in the womb, excuse ME. “

          Gender is a social construct. Sex exists inside the womb and is an observable fact.

          “We only have two main identifiers in this “system”, male and female.”

          Conflating sex and gender won’t help clear up the issue. The expectations and attributes we assign to the sexes (gender) is what is problematic.

          “You have to wonder how many hundreds of generations of men and women spend their days behaving one way and feeling another…”

          And imagine if there was no system in placing telling them how they were feeling was *wrong* and they should feel ashamed for it.

          That system is gender. It is not the individual that is the problem.

          • “Absolutely. There are a options. Becoming a gender non-conforming male or female, transgender, or a homosexual for instance”

            Like the preacher telling the homosexual there are option – just abstain from sex or pray away the gay.

            Or they can just live their lives as a transgender as they see fit.

            “That system is gender. It is not the individual that is the problem.”

            The problem is they were born with a penis or vagina and they don’t feel it fits or belongs on their body. It feels alien to them. That’s not gender.

            • @GC

              “Like the preacher telling the homosexual there are option – just abstain from sex or pray away the gay.”

              Oh, I see. So there is a prescriptive formula in place then – if you are a boy and like girl things you must be a girl and vice versa? (This is what enforced gender roles look like btw, something that I am not advocating for)

              So you’d rather have less options available to people who are exploring their personal experience and just the ones you think are mandated?

              “The problem is they were born with a penis or vagina and they don’t feel it fits or belongs on their body.”

              Oh so now it is a requirement laid down by you that to be trans you must have body-dysphoria? Some TG people would disagreewith your assertion.

              “That’s not gender.

              How we act and are expected to act in society are explicitly gender roles.

              • “Oh, I see. So there is a prescriptive formula in place then – if you are a boy and like girl things you must be a girl and vice versa? (This is what enforced gender roles look like btw, something that I am not advocating for)

                So you’d rather have less options available to people who are exploring their personal experience and just the ones you think are mandated?”

                WTF are you talking about?

                You’re the one mandating. I showed it throughout the post. I think people should live their lives as they please. You’re the one peddling that transgender is a belief that comes with an ideology.

                “Oh so now it is a requirement laid down by you that to be trans you must have body-dysphoria? Some TG people would disagreewith your assertion.”

                No but it’s clearly the case in some. I could care less. It’s you that is laying down requirements about it being a belief and that it comes with an ideology.

                • @GC
                  @GC

                  “You’re the one peddling that transgender is a belief that comes with an ideology.”

                  Err ya. For instance, consider what is going on with Mr.Pink and I in the conversation –

                  Some in the TG community believe that if a man says, or identifies as a woman – he is in fact a woman.

                  That is a belief, as it not based on fact. This facet of the discussion should not be particularly controversial.

                  Others believe that identifying as, or feeling like a woman is not the same as actually being a woman.

                  The first is not supported by factual, observed reality, the second is.

                  That isn’t hard.

                  “It’s you that is laying down requirements about it being a belief and that it comes with an ideology.

                  Which set of beliefs isn’t considered an ideology?

                  Ideology being defined as – a collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society. It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one’s beliefs, goals, expectations, and motivations.

                  Now, if you’re using a different definition, I can see where some confusion would arise.

  2. From the atheist perspective that all there is, is nature, then gender is male and female since that is how gender is defined in the natural world.

    Christian doctrine, either by natural law theory, and/or biblical teachings understands the same thing:

    that gender is defined by the natural world, or God as male and female.

    Any other belief is either a personal preference or some sort of natural disorder.

  3. “The arguments The Arbourist was making are the same sorts of arguments religious people made to deny same-sex couples their rights – they would tell people that their sexual orientation was just a belief, and therefore they didn’t deserve the same protections heterosexual people enjoyed.”

    That is 100% correct. Every single one of the Arbourist’s anti-trans arguments is a rehash of the anti-gay arguments used by the religious right during the past three decades.
    From gays aren’t born gay, to being gay isn’t “real”, to gay people are just trying to copy the “natural” relationships of heterosexual people.

      • Are you naming that one in the hope it’s an exception? It isn’t.

        You’re *defining* someone else. You’re labelling them according to ~your own~ arbitrary standards, instead of respecting each individual’s freedom to identify themselves. Defining a woman on your terms is a socio-cultural rhetorical trick. You define, in order to exclude. How many examples would you like of that being done to gay people? It will indeed take time to list them all.

        • @Mr.M

          “You’re *defining* someone else.

          Words. Have. Meanings.

          Words that change from person to person, from second to second – that are not common agreements anymore, lose coherency.

          “Defining a woman on your terms is a socio-cultural rhetorical trick.

          Really? My terms? Like as in the scientific material reality of the situation? Since when is acknowledging observable human differences – sex – a rhetorical trick?

          “You define, in order to exclude.”

          So do you, everyday. Sugar isn’t salt, coffee isn’t tea. Males are not females.

          So why don’t you define the term ‘woman’ for us? Because you have not offered any evidence that woman = adult human female needs revising or is lacking in some way.

          “How many examples would you like of that being done to gay people?”

          No actually I’d like you to refute why woman = adult human female is exactly like this –

          “Every single one of the Arbourist’s anti-trans arguments is a rehash of the anti-gay arguments used by the religious right during the past three decades”

          Because the arguments presented by you so far – words that have clear definitions are somehow *wrong* just isn’t reasonable.

          • You can play as many games as you like, I think it’s quite clear to everyone here that you’re on the side of discrimination.

            Words have meaning indeed, and fortunately we’ve arrived at a cultural point where we don’t reduce womanhood or manhood to genitalia or a reproductive organ. It’s much more complex, and much of it is socio-cultural. I am not a man simply because I was born with a penis. Perhaps you’re that simplistic, who knows? There’s no incoherence in recognising that a word can have a grander meaning- in the EXACT same way that marriage doesn’t have to mean *only* the union of a man and a woman. Or that salaries are no longer paid in salt.
            ***Note to all*** this is an example of how the Arbourist uses the same falacious and misleading argument structures as the Christian Right.***

            You want to arbitrarily define womanhood in a limited way because it suits the political interests of the small group you belong to. Fortunately small enough that it’s in no way representative of classic or mainstream feminism.

            • @Mr. M

              “You can play as many games as you like,

              Oh, so which word games are you referring to – you mean defining things as they are?

              I notice you won’t define woman, but rather, go for yet another refreshing round of Well Poisoning.

              “Words have meaning indeed, and fortunately we’ve arrived at a cultural point where we don’t reduce womanhood or manhood to genitalia or a reproductive organ.”

              Oh so sex based oppression doesn’t exist – we’re past that? (the following from blacktailswallowbutterfly)

              “Females have ovaries that produce ova and a uterus that sheds its lining once a month. Because of the ova production and a uterus with the potential to support a foetus, our reproductive rights are restricted. Because of the monthly shedding, we are mocked, bullied, and in some countries actively ostracized until the bleeding stops. If we become pregnant, we are considered murderers if we abort, defective if we miscarry, abandoning our child if we adopt, milking the system if we’re poor and we keep the child, unable to properly raise a child if we’re a single mother, etc..

              Having vaginas ensure that we are expected to serve males sexually, even if some of us are completely repulsed by males. Although the vagina can tear if we aren’t aroused or natural lubrication isn’t sufficient, we are expected to take it until the man is satisfied. Our vaginas are considered icky, our natural smells wrong. Males who are perceived too feminine are often compared to our vaginas (“pussy”, “mangina”).

              We also have clitori and labia, and depending where we’re born we may have our clitoris and/or our labia cut off. Even if we live in places where that’s not legal or condoned, porn ensures a good number of women will be dissatisfied with the size or shape or colour of the labia, and may be ashamed if their clitoris is “too big”. Only recently was it discovered that the clitoris is far more than the visible glans, that most of it is internal, and yet the inner working of the penis and testes has been fairly common knowledge for decades.

              We lack a prostate, but males expect us to simply give in to anal sex because they want to try it. We are expected to do this even at the risk of pain and tearing.

              Our bladders are tipped, which makes us much more likely to get bladder infections, yet we are not given extra bathroom breaks.

              Males are seen as the default humans. Symptoms listed for various conditions are those that males experience, but not females. Female symptoms go completely ignored unless a women’s health organization covers it.

              We also have breasts, which are treated as sexual objects for male pleasure, which overrides their actual function, and even the lives of the women. Breastfeeding in public is considered inappropriate, but full frontal nudity of females is commonplace in multiple media. Campaigns against breast cancer are called “Save The Tatas” and the like.

              Females on average are weaker than males, having less muscle mass and lesser bone density. Males use this difference to intimidate, terrorize, beat, rape, and even murder females.”

              I’m certainly glad you’ve decided we’re past that whole simplistic sex based oppression thang. :/

              Oh! Actually, we’re not.

              Sex based oppression exists and we most certainly ‘haven’t moved past it’. Women are oppressed precisely because they have female anatomy and attempting to handwave it away by saying the issue ‘more complex’ than that is indicative of ignorance of the female experience in society, maybe some misogyny as well, but that’s just speculation.

              “There’s no incoherence in recognising that a word can have a grander meaning-

              So I’m waiting – define what Woman is and justify why “=adult human female” is not sufficient. I’ve defined my terms, and you haven’t. I do await your grander meaning.

              ***Note to all*** this is an example of how the Arbourist uses the same falacious and misleading argument structures as the Christian Right.***

              Hey, I’ve got the evil feminist ally thing down – people know – it’s all good. You need to spend some more time dealing with the arguments and less time poisoning the well.

              And you need to demonstrate that defining the word woman – as adult human female is fallacious and misleading, because just you saying so, doesn’t make it true.

              Also, if you do make the attempt, try and avoid circularity in your definition – because as demonstrated here you are a stickler for the fallacies. 🙂

              “You want to arbitrarily define womanhood in a limited way because it suits the political interests of the small group you belong to.”

              Which words in our language are *not* arbitrary? The meanings of male/female can be easily observed in nature as a definitive set of traits. We could call the male sex – “hrooda-duda” and the female sex “lampda-whampda” it wouldn’t change anything.

              Biological sex exists without any input from us at all, it would seem it is as close as we can get to an objective, empirical fact.

              The one who wants to redefine words for a particular ideology would seem to be you. Good luck with that – and again – make the better reality based case for why we should change the definition of woman = adult human female.

              • I think I’ve made it clear before that everyone sees through your comment bombs. The length and format are used to shut down debate while you parrot the talking points of an extremist group. It didn’t work before and it’s not going to work now.

                I don’t define women because it’s not my right or place to do so in a free society. That’s the prerogative of the individual. It’s not *your* right either. The arrogance you demonstrate in attempting to do so is phenomenal. I as a gay man, don’t need anyone telling me what being a *real* man is all about. What you’re doing is precisely that. Dictating to people what their identity is. Get over yourself.

                Sex based oppression exists, and instead of setting it aside what your group is doing is embracing and promoting it. You want to use genitalia as a measure to define and exclude a subcategory of people. You’re not opposing patriarchy, you’re reinventing it to suit your political interests. It’s bad for feminism, it’s bad for LGBT rights, and all it does is increase sectarianism.

                You should consider that if your ideology depends on this level of deception to attempt to convince people… there’s probably something very wrong with it. That you pretend there’s no difference between an outsider labelling another human being or differentiating between coffee or tea shows exactly the sort of legerdemain you’re trying to engage in. It’s ideological fraud.

                • @Mr.Pink

                  “I think I’ve made it clear before that everyone sees through your comment bombs.”

                  Ah, you mean evidence for the positions I take. Guilty, as charged.

                  “The length and format are used to shut down debate while you parrot the talking points of an extremist group.”

                  Wait, weren’t you just arguing for complexity? Why yes, yes you were – you said it here – P: “. It’s much more complex, and much of it is socio-cultural.”

                  You’re going to have to pick a preferred method of discussion, because apparently “simple” isn’t acceptable and complex, well, is also just too hard.

                  “I don’t define women because it’s not my right or place to do so in a free society.

                  I’m glad you don’t. When others tell me how I am supposed to define what a woman is, would you think that it might also be problematic in a free society?

                  Or that disagreeing with someone’s definition is not allowed. As stated earlier, if this is the case, I think you owe SoM a couple of apologies, as you have in the past contradicted his beliefs on several occasions.

                  “That’s the prerogative of the individual. It’s not *your* right either.

                  I completely agree. I do however reserve the right to disagree with an individual’s beliefs. Furthermore, I should not be sanctioned for doing so, *if* it is a free society and we’re allowed to disagree.

                  Many chritians hold a deep, cherished belief in heaven – it is a deeply held feeling, integral to their character and existence in how they interact with society- yet you seem to have no problem being critical of that.

                  So are we allowed to be critical of beliefs or not?

                  ” I as a gay man, don’t need anyone telling me what being a *real* man is all about. What you’re doing is precisely that.

                  I think you should quote me where I’ve been telling you what being a real man is all about. 🙂 I certainly cannot find the reference.

                  “Dictating to people what their identity is. Get over yourself.”

                  I’m not really sure how that works, it would seem that society gets the say on that one. Sex, being based in reality and is one of the ways that society determines how we are treated. Or are you suggesting that a girl who is about to undergo FGM simple identify her way out of the situation?

                  For that matter, why don’t females en masse simply identify as male and therefore stop being oppressed? Why are they not doing it right now – because the lot of being female in society isn’t particularly amazing right now.

                  “Sex based oppression exists, and instead of setting it aside what your group is doing is embracing and promoting it.”

                  Really? Women should just ‘set aside’ their lack of reproductive rights and general bodily autonomy – what an amazing deal for women. Hell, I guess the need for feminism is over who needs a movement centred on the needs of females after all… especially when they dare prioritize the shit that is happening to them over the needs of others. It seems like you’re advocating that feminism shouldn’t be about females and their problems.

                  “You want to use genitalia as a measure to define and exclude a subcategory of people.

                  Well because genitalia is the reason why females are being oppressed the world over. Or did you want to argue that women’s biology and reproductive capacity are *not* the reason for their oppression. I really need to hear your explanation why women should not prioritize their discrimination and oppression in their movement.

                  “You’re not opposing patriarchy, you’re reinventing it to suit your political interests.”

                  Wow. Altering peoples bodies to match with the current set of patriarchal gender roles *isn’t* a reinvention and reinforcement of the gender hierarchy (patriarchy). Do go on. 🙂

                  “It’s bad for feminism, it’s bad for LGBT rights, and all it does is increase sectarianism.

                  Actually, it is quite good for feminism, as women realize that they need to rededicate their efforts toward a movement that prioritizes their needs and works to combat their oppression.

                  “You should consider that if your ideology depends on this level of deception to attempt to convince people… there’s probably something very wrong with it. “

                  Defining terms and explaining why those terms are important is ‘deceptive’? The amount of solipsism and dancing around a single term – woman = adult human female has been nothing short of amazing.

                  You won’t define woman because in doing so would identify them as a unique class of individuals – that happen to face a particular set of societal challenges and oppression’s – and requires a movement that is centred on their needs.

                  The definition provided – woman = adult human female is grounded in material, scientific reality. And has yet to be shown to be inadequate in its function.

                  Perhaps to those who think that feminism shouldn’t focus on the liberation of women from the patriarchal structures of society this definition seems wrong. But to those who value female liberation and the struggle to be free from patriarchy – it is certainly a most useful definition.

                  ” That you pretend there’s no difference between an outsider labelling another human being or differentiating between coffee or tea shows exactly the sort of legerdemain you’re trying to engage in.”

                  You are free to call what is commonly known as ‘coffee’ whichever term you like. As you have stated, it is a free society. And within bounds of said free society, I can disagree with your terminology, especially when it is not grounded in fact.

                  No sleight of hand necessary. No version of ‘free society’ exists in which I am obligated to validate your personal feelings and beliefs on a matter.

                  Although, you arguing that people should not be allowed to disagree with the thoughts and ideas of another decidedly smacks of totalitarian thinking.

                  • 1. That’s another comment bomb. Copy/pasting isn’t providing evidence. It’s providing a link. Links can be entirely false as is often the case with you. The intent of comment bombing is shutting down the discussion and it’s part of how you try to manipulate comments sections on various blogs. Not just this one. You’re basically trying to scam readers. And doing it in a whole range of ways, from pretending you “speak for feminism”, to pretending you’re an authority, to simply exhausting people with propaganda.

                    2. What you reserve the right for is authoritarianism. Pure and simple. You want to be the person dictating to others what definition means what. Talk about entitlement… As I said in very simple terms before: Christians are entitled to do and feel, and define themselves as they choose. Jews are free not to eat pork. Muslim women may choose to cover their heads. Those are all choices. When you IMPOSE a label on another free individual you cross the line. You do not have that right. You don’t have it legally and you certainly don’t have it morally.

                    3. Your last paragraph is yet another example of manipulation. It rings of yet another Christian Right fraud: How dare Gay people think they can live their lives without the approval of the religious right. And how dare transgendered people go around thinking they can live their lives without the *agreement* of the Arbourist. That one thing every person needs.
                    Laughable.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “The intent of comment bombing is shutting down the discussion and it’s part of how you try to manipulate comments sections on various blogs.”

                      Muhahahaha – the evil rad fem strikes again. I’m glad we’re at this point now, you having conceded the argument and now are just throwing stones. 🙂

                      “What you reserve the right for is authoritarianism.”

                      You say what you need to say. I can define terms and ideas unambiguously. You, have not.

                      ” When you IMPOSE a label on another free individual you cross the line. You do not have that right. You don’t have it legally and you certainly don’t have it morally. “.

                      How we know the world is based on observable, testable evidence. The idea of distinct classes of ‘male’ and ‘female’ is a biological fact – there is no line to cross because it is the reality of the situation. As said to many of the religious – you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but not the facts of the matter.

                      ” And how dare transgendered people go around thinking they can live their lives without the *agreement* of the Arbourist.”

                      TG people can live their lives however they want. They are not entitled to think that their particular world-view is sacrosanct and beyond question and that others *must* abide by it, especially when it does not concur with material reality.

                      Sorta like the religious and their expectations of non-believers to revere their particular Ooga-booga. Not gonna happen, especially when the evidence just isn’t there.

                      As always Mr. M, it’s been a slice. 🙂

                    • Ah yes, the idea of different classes of humans is an observable fact. It was for racists, for nazis, for Spanish colonial society- and for every single group whose agenda is to marginalize another group.
                      You can try to make light of your hate speech and propaganda; but it will always be hate speech and propaganda. Shameful and disgusting. That’s the material reality. Your discourse is simply disgusting.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “Shameful and disgusting. That’s the material reality.”

                      Might as well try for the character assassination again, this whole not engaging with the actual argument just doesn’t seem to be working out for you. Maybe something will stick? Score some points maybe – show that darn feminist how to *really* argue?

                      Your acumen is noted.

                      You stillhaven’t offered a reasonable argument as to why a person should change the idea that woman = adult human female.

                      Why? Because altering the definition goes against the scientific, empirical evidence that is available.

                      Are there any other empirically proven and scientifically sound topics that you would like to argue against? Evolution? Gravity? Oh… perhaps climate change?

                      My apologies, I seem to have become a bit facetious – but one can only ‘argue’ with indignant outrage for so long – it gets tiresome after a spell.

                      So… yes, yes, yes, evil and gross to the max over here – perhaps they should bring back tarring and feathering for the high crime of disagreeing with someone’s worldview.

                      I think everyone gets it, but they also get that you don’t have an argument or a better solution to the issue. (and of course by better, I do mean more congruent with reality).

                      As stated earlier, fun as always Mr.P. 🙂

                    • You can hide behind whichever excuse you like. You can also rationalise the FACT that what you’re doing is promoting the labelling and exclusion of a group of fellow citizens. To say you’re doing it for women or feminism doesn#t make it any better.

                      I think I’ve been clear enough on how it’s not up to you to define another human being, and why we shouldn’t limit the definition of human beings. Choosing to ignore those arguments and the history that supports them is the choice of a sectarian extremist- as is your case.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “I think I’ve been clear enough on how it’s not up to you to define another human being,

                      Objective fact exist. I have no say in the matter – neither do you. Continue to peddle the irrational notions as much as you’d like it won’t change anything.

                      The human species is sexually dimorphic. I’m very sorry reality doesn’t bend in the way you’d like it too.

                      “Choosing to ignore those arguments “

                      No, there is no reason to go further than the statement in question: woman = adult human female.

                      ” is the choice of a sectarian extremist- as is your case.”

                      And choosing to deny the reasonable definition of what a woman is erases the female experience and their sex based oppression. And that is about as anti-feminist as one can get – MRA territory to be honest. (I mean as long as we’re continuing to dodge the argument and toss stones)

                    • @Mr.M

                      “You are reducing gender to an arbitrary measure of your choice.”

                      Gender, fundamentally, is arbitrary – it is a social construct that creates an artificial dichotomy in society that privileges one set of people and behaviors (males and masculinity) and oppresses the other set of people (females and femininity).

                      The gender hierarchy is shit. It’s strictures and rules hurt women and men.

                      Sex is not gender. Biological sex along with sexual dimorphism is not a social construction, but rather a observable, empirical fact.

                      “You don’t get to decide what makes another free human being a man or a woman.It’s that simple.

                      *I* am not deciding. Observing evidence and drawing the logical conclusion is simply behaving in accordance with reality. You know what science does.

                      Are there any other topics in which strong feelings and deeply held beliefs should supersede scientific fact?

                      “The fact that you don’t understand your arguments are specious

                      Yet, I am arguing from the basis of observable empirical fact.

                      Here’s an easy question – tell me what a woman is? I’d love to hear how you define the category. Again, I’ll caution you, try to avoid circularity in your answer. And show how your definition of woman is better – that is closer to the truth – than mine.

                      This whole discussion has been precisely that.

                      Furthermore, you honestly can’t provide a better definition because being a woman *isn’t* a feeling. It is a material reality and based on that material reality women are oppressed.

                      So, in denying this basic definition, you’re denying women the means in which to discuss and fight against their oppression. (you cannot fight against what you cannot name).

                      So, maybe stop doing the work of the patriarchy and support women in their fight for liberation when you’re discussing feminism?

                    • Skin colour is an observable fact. Race is an observable fact. Nationality is an observable fact. By embracing those observable, narrow and constraining definitions you set out a framework by which people are oppressed, discriminated and marginalized.

                      Do you understand what specious is?
                      Let me give you an example.

                      Gay people shouldn’t get married because they can’t have children within the couple.
                      -Non gay couples may choose or not have the ability to have children, so the argument is specious. Having children is not the sole/unique/exclusive objective of a marriage.

                      I point that out because every aspect of your argument is specious. You say womanhood is based on X factor. You don’t do that “based in science” as you imply, you do it based on a very specific set of standards that *you chose* arbitrarily. A set of standards that is in fact disputed by many, including myself. A person’s identity is considerably more complex than genitalia at birth.

                    • @Mr.M

                      ” By embracing those observable, narrow and constraining definitions you set out a framework…

                      Much better to be ‘colourblind’ then and not aware of the systemic factors that promulgate oppression.

                      Doesn’t sound like a good plan to me.

                      “You don’t do that “based in science” as you imply, you do it based on a very specific set of standards that *you chose* arbitrarily.”

                      These standards would exist with or without me choosing them. Biological differences between males and females in our species exist and because they exist females are oppressed.

                      Denying that, is denying sex-based oppression. Not logical, and most certainly not feminist.

                      “A set of standards that is in fact disputed by many, including myself.”

                      Dispute away. Doesn’t change the fact that women are oppressed because they are female.

                      ” A person’s identity is considerably more complex than genitalia at birth.

                      No kidding? 🙂 Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have a system in place (gender) that arbitrarily favours one class of people and slights the other.

                      Get rid of the system, the codified gender roles in society, and we are laughing.

                      Continue to think on individual level with individual solutions – nothing changes.

                    • You can save the smiley faces for people stupid enough not to be able to identify your con-artistry.
                      Evidently you’re repeating your mistake of thinking someone appointed you to speak *foe Lesbians*.
                      Hilarious! You speak for feminism, for women at large- now for Lesbians!
                      Talk about transgenderism… If there was ever someone confused about identity and position it’s obviously that which is know as the Arbourist.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “Hilarious! You speak for feminism, for women at large- now for Lesbians!”

                      Funny how this all came from a mere disagreement in terms.

                      Here is another one – could you please define what a homosexual is?

                      I’d love to hear how this works vis a vis the sexual category for female.

                      Oh dear! Perhaps homosexual is a bit of an exclusionary term after-all, we should look into that to make sure that hetero relationships are covered in the term homosexual.

                      We may have to redefine what a homosexual is as well! (!)

                      This rabbit hole just gets deeper and deeper once you disabuse yourself of that nasty notion that words have meanings. 🙂

                      “If there was ever someone confused about identity and position it’s obviously that which is know as the Arbourist. “

                      Do I get to say the same about your odious stance on feminism as long as we’re throwing stones and not actually addressing the arguments at hand.

                    • My odious stance on feminism? according to… *you*?
                      LOL
                      I’m for Olympe de Gouges feminism. Simone de Beauvoir feminism, Clara Campoamor feminism.
                      If you’re curious about the meaning of homosexual, it’s not exclusionary. It can be a sentiment, it can be an experience, it can be a lifelong characteristic. I’m not going to decide or tell someone else what it means or should mean to them.
                      You obviously feel someone appointed you to the role of arbiter. Againn, laughable.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “LOL
                      I’m for Olympe de Gouges feminism. Simone de Beauvoir feminism,

                      You certainly are. Also strong defender of a feminism that doesn’t centre females. Whoops there we ago another definition feminism- the emancipation of women from patriarchy – these darn words and their means.

                      They really seem out to get you. 🙂

                      “You obviously feel someone appointed you to the role of arbiter.”

                      Believing that words have meanings = arbiter. I’m whatever you need me to be I suppose.

                      As said earlier, happy to toss you a line back to reality when you’re done identifying your way to a better society.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “So after all of this you still don’t understand…

                      And you don’t get a whit of what feminism is about, I guess we’re even.

                      “When you learn how to do that, maybe you can participate in an adult discussion.”

                      You mean your lack off addressing the relevant arguments, the inability to define the most basic of terms, and slinging mud at people not involved on the thread is an adult discussion?

                      One learns something new every day.

                      Anyways, thank you for engaging so productively with me, the weaknesses of your positions are quite discernible and quiet easily put to rest. The practice with such a hostile opponent has been invaluable.

                      As usual Mr.M, it has been a slice. Take care, and have a great day 🙂

                    • Really?
                      Did you miss the class where everyone was taught the mathematics of logic?

                      Defining a woman as someone who was born with ____- is no different than defining a Jew as someone born_____. Mestizos, Castizos and Criollos were all terms based on “material realities”. The use of the word Nazi in this case demonstrates your actual thought process. One that can be observed in your comments here and elsewhere. It’s not hyperbole.

                    • I don’t need to mention Hitler. Your arguments are here for everyone to see. Why don’t you keep going and after defining woman, you can define what a *real white woman* is.
                      Do lay out for us that objective reality.
                      Also, tell us how you plan to use the objective reality of defining the *Real White Woman*. Does she get special rooms for her exclusive use?
                      A water fountain?
                      Good try with imbecilic accusations of drunkenness. They don’t really hide the fact you’re arguing for discrimination and marginalization.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “Your arguments are here for everyone to see.”

                      As are yours, and your enmity toward feminism is noted.

                      “Why don’t you keep going and after defining woman….

                      I’ve provided the definition of what a woman is several times. You haven’t bothered to define your terms, so maybe you should do your work first. 🙂

                      “Real White Woman*. Does she get special rooms for her exclusive use?”

                      Did you want to get into race parallels? 🙂

                      Is #BLM terrible and exclusive for not centering white people in its movement?

                      How about Canada’s Idle No More movement – should they have white people centered in their movement and have aspersions cast on them because they are being “exclusionary” ?

                      If a white individual deeply feels and identifies as a black person colour should they be centered in the movement? Is their experience of oppression going to be same as an actual black person?

                      No. They are not experiencing the material realty of the oppression, nor should they be considered black.

                      Can they be part of the movement? Absolutely, but as allies because the movement isn’t about them.

                      A movement that centers its oppressors, isn’t an effective movement. The #BLM and First Nations movements are under no expectation to include the people that oppress them in their movements.

                      Yet, women are expected to in theirs.

                      Doesn’t seem quite right.

                    • I’m a defender of feminism. So don’t go wrapping yourself up in flags pretending to be the One True Believer. It’s misleading, as most of what you write, and is verifiably fraudulent.

                      The “definitions” you provide are entirely meaningless. As meaningless as those who tell us what a True Patriot is. A True Southerner. A True American. A True Christian.

                      And just so we don;t waste any time, stop trying to deflect and change the subject. The race example is directly related to the MATHEMATICAL FORMAT of your argument. Do you need me to lay out what the mathematical format of your argument is?

                    • @Mr.M

                      “I’m a defender of feminism. So don’t go wrapping yourself up in flags pretending to be the One True Believer.”

                      Really?

                      I’m sure all the lesbians currently being pressured to accept the lady-dick appreciating your hard work.

                      Given your orientation, why are you promoting a policy/theory/ethics that victimizes lesbians?

                      I mean, I can certainly offer evidence, but that would be just another ‘comment bomb’ and we can’t have that.

                      Yeah, so lesbians for having a sexual preference are being harassed and being called out as transphobes for not wanting to be with trans-women.

                      Of course, actually being female means ( to the likes of you) accepting whatever notion males (lady-peen?) happen to define as female.

                      Yes, your defense of feminism is most sincerely noted.

                      “The “definitions” you provide are entirely meaningless.

                      Your continued inability to provide coherent definition of what a woman is all one needs to observe in this discussion. 🙂

                      ” The race example ”

                      The race example you need to illustrate is why the #BLM in the United States should be obligated to accept white people (their oppressors) into their movement if said why people happen to identify as black.

                      Good luck with that. 🙂

                      “And just so we don;t waste any time, stop trying to deflect and change the subject.”

                      No deflecting here, just waiting for you to define your terms.

                      Are there any other empirical facts you’d like to dispute – should how you feel about the colour red take precedence over what it is in observable reality (The visible red light has a wavelength of about 650 nm)?

                      Again, your case for redefining what a woman is – adult human female – falls short.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “Well, the class of person you are just became very, very clear. “

                      Aye. The one that listens to females and their concerns, and wastes time with dudes who don’t get the idea that feminism is about female liberation. 🙂

                      More to the point, do lesbians get to define what they like and dislike?

                      Because, lesbians by definition are females that are sexually attracted to other females. (Another definition? I know right? Another set of words that have a distinct meaning – trouble with capital “T” for sure.)

                      Are they wrong for their preference? Should they be getting any flak for the TG community? Because let me assure you they are.

                      I need you to tell me how your particular feminism supports female autonomy and choice in this matter of sexual preference – because let me assure you – what you’re advocating for removes their choice in the matter.

                      “Well, the class of person you are just became very, very clear.”

                      You have a very impressive vocabulary, it allows for so many unique ways of avoiding actually arguing.

                      The fainting couch is over there along with a copious amount of pearls for clutching, if required.

                      As always, at your service, good sir. 🙂

                    • There are only two possible scenarios in this discussion. One is that you know your arguments are specious. If that’s the case you’re a con artist trying to score points and fool people into thinking the ideas promoted by your sect are reasonable. The other is you don’t know what specious means, in which case you don’t have the education or skills to participate in debates generally reserved for adults.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “There are only two possible scenarios in this discussion.

                      The third option and most likely is that you *don’t* have a better definition for what a woman is. (hard to square them circles, once the nitty-gritty starts eh?)

                      The rest is all of your po-mo solipsism under the bridge.

                      Those of us that chose to embrace the reality based world of evidence and facts will be waiting once you’re through indulging yourself.

                      *waves* 🙂 Thank you for playing.

                    • That’s because a definition of womanhood is not up to me. Each individual will have their vision. You can arrogantly claim to *own the one true definition*, but fortunately you’re not really in a position to make such a claim. You’re a loser, like your friend roughseas, making grand claims on your blog which sometimes gets two whole comments at a time. Now why don’t you go and play with yourself?

                    • @Mr.M

                      ” Each individual will have their vision. “

                      I hope you’re never a city planner where everyone has their own vision and meaning of the words like stop and go.

                      LoL. 🙂

                      “You can arrogantly claim to *own the one true definition*”

                      Me and the rest of the scientific community and a good portion of the world that relies on evidence to inform themselves as far as the world works.

                      Guilty of being rational, as charged. 🙂

                      “You’re a loser, like your friend roughseas, making grand claims on your blog which sometimes gets two whole comments at a time”

                      Happy to take up your time, so feminists who are actually working to get shit done, can do so without the incessant p0-mo male-centric prattle that detracts from the task of securing female liberation.

                      “Now why don’t you go and play with yourself?”

                      But Bro, I’m having such a delightful time with you watching you do rhetorical back-flips trying to justify why words shouldn’t have meanings and why empirical facts don’t matter.

                      It is glorious. 🙂

                      My door is always open for you, as always, is has been a pleasure.

                    • You and the “rest of the scientific community”- now there’s one we can all laugh about.
                      You who do not know how to formulate basic logic- the most basic mathematics of logic- implies you’re part of a scientific community?!? LOL

                      You’d better get back to the government hovel in which Roughseas lives, subsidised by tax paying citizens like me- where the two of you can continue to make your monumental contribution to feminism by looking for methods whereby you make discrimination against transgendered people seem less disgusting than it is. Good luck. And do spare us the passive aggressive smiley faces. They may fool your anger management assessor, but not the rest of us.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “where the two of you can continue to make your monumental contribution to feminism by looking for methods whereby you make discrimination against transgendered people […]

                      Aaaand what was feminism about again, hmmm…I distinctly recall it being about female emancipation from patriarchy.

                      Soldier on, you’re doing great. :> But advancing the feminist cause isn’t quite your bag.

                      Again, we’re past arguing, (quite awhile, as providing basic definitions for key terms seems to be out your ballpark) but maybe there is just a little more amusement to be had.

                      Full marks for keeping the discussion civil, btw. Petty insults on the internet will for sure double plus make people stand up and listen. 🙂

                    • Ah yes. Thank you for dictating to the entire world how it all works.
                      Where is it again that you and Ms. Government Benefits living at her Parent’s house are mentioned as the elected representatives of feminism?

                      You, the person who accused me of being drunk all of 3 hours ago have the nerve to talk about “civil discussions”?
                      Seriously?

                      Right. Do please lecture us on petty insults! We can’t wait to learn! You do seem to be a real authority on all sorts of things! Smiley faces and all.

                    • @Mr.M

                      “Thank you for dictating to the entire world how it all works.”

                      You’re welcome. 🙂

                      “Benefits living at her Parent’s house are mentioned as the elected representatives of feminism?”

                      I notice, that RS isn’t even on this thread, yet the animosity is palpable. A little less rage, and more attention to arguing with me *might* be in order. But, talking trash toward people does seem to fall easily in your wheelhouse.

                      Or not.

                      “You, the person who accused me of being drunk all of 3 hours ago have the nerve to talk about “civil discussions”?

                      You’ve slung mud in each and almost every comment. And then get bent out of shape over a being drunk comment?

                      Fragile male ego to go along with all the other wonderful traits. Go git’em tiger. 🙂

                      “You do seem to be a real authority on all sorts of things!

                      I’m glad you have finally seen the light and recognized my authorit-ay 🙂

                    • You know, when you answer a comment, the comment is already on the thread. Copy/pasting the whole thing over again every time you leave a response isn’t necessary. People generally understand how speaking and responding works.
                      P.S. At no point was I “bent out of shape”, I’m pointing out your hypocrisy. It’s important that people understand exactly what you do because it’s the same method used by the Christian Right.

                      1. You pretend to be proposing something benign (let’s define women, just as Evangelicals want to *define* marriage)

                      2. Then you present all manner of specious arguments, some which even debunk themselves. Some utterly absurd.

                      But the really fantastic part is the truth always comes out. With the Evangelicals it was about associating gay people to pedophilia- with your crowd it’s about associating trans people to rape. Even to raping lesbians.
                      And there you have it, my friends. That’s the Arbourist for you, intentional deception and hate speech.

              • “Oh so sex based oppression doesn’t exist – we’re past that? (the following from blacktailswallowbutterfly)”

                Where did he say that? No where did he imply that sex based oppression doesn’t exist.

                Although I’d disagree with a bunch of what you quoted afterwards, but that just serves to detract from what we’re actually discussing, which is your idea that transgender is a belief and comes with a specific ideology.

                “Women are oppressed precisely because they have female anatomy and attempting to handwave it away by saying the issue ‘more complex’ than that is indicative of ignorance of the female experience in society, maybe some misogyny as well, but that’s just speculation.”

                That didn’t take long. You went from virtue signalling right to he might be a misogynist because he disagrees with you. Unbelievable.

    • Mr. Merveilleux,

      Human rights must be based on human nature, not gender, not sexual preference, not skin color, not religion.

      Otherwise, the concept of human rights simply becomes another example of justice being the advantage of the strong…

      …where Christians are put out of business, fined and sent to re-education camps for expressing their moral values in public.

      LGBT rights are not a way of helping LGBT people.

      They are an example of how leftist tyrants ruthlessly use a segment of the population to destroy the freedom of speech and religion.

  4. Some people -most people- play around with a different sexuality, especially children who like to play dress up. That’s normal, I did it myself, had a phase where I had short hair and refused to wear a dress.

    Some open minded people experiment with their sexuality when they get older. How can you know if you don’t try, they think, and they don’t break any laws by doing so.

    Some people, however, are born with a longing that cannot be explained. It’s more than just a wish; it’s a sensation of feeling lost.

    The difference between a crossdresser and a transsexual is how often they do it. Taking this route is a hard one, even in today’s society, especially here in America, where so many still react “shocked” if anything is out of their comfort zone.

    Statics and more statistics, studies and more studies…can they really sum us all up?

    People believe in Santa Claus, in the Easter Bunny and some in a God or Gods, sexuality is not a belief; it’s a feeling, something that can not be explained like our personality or our character. Some have it; some don’t. 🙂

    Sorry for the novel! (A friend of mine is a transgender woman)

  5. There is and there never will be any proof that transgender is real at all. No real sciences or any other human being can even prove a fact about the idea of being a transgender. Let us face fact transgender is no more that a lie told by all liberals just to get special right[s], and to have it legal for all those perverts that claim to be a transgender to use the opposite genders bathroom, locker room, or even changing room.
    Let us even face facts that all those that eve support transgender just plain hate and are all haters of life, liberty, and freedom. the truth is now they are demanding to force other into their demands and they want to demand that morals and morality is to be removed and their immoral and sexual immorality take its place as the new standard way of life and they even demand that all are to even claim to be born as a transgender so that their sexual immorality be legal.

    the transgender way of life is the second civil war that is to be found in the United States of America. It is their hate that is driving the second civil war. and this war will not end and there will be no peace as long as the transgender and their supporters keep on what they are doing.

    Thank You

    • Maybe you should conduct a study attempting to disprove that my gender identity is unreal.
      I have no desire to take anyone’s rights away or be a sexual pervert. I am a virgin and have never had any desire to hurt anyone else.
      I am a great supporter of liberty and life. I would like to own a gun, I would be happy to protect my family and friends from any type of harm, were it in my power.
      I suppose it is all a matter of opinion, friend. Don’t let my views make you uncomfortable. But saying that all transgender persons are perverts is a gross generalization. I dare say you have never met even one trans person, much less the millions in the world. So don’t judge without proof.

      • First is thank you for your reply

        You and I are correct that there would never be any proof of the fact[s] about transgender.
        Yes I need to have just one cite[s] that would be something to read and view.
        Here is a fact that I am not even and will never be uncomfortable by you or any other human being that is alive on the face of the earth. I have no fear. Stay a virgin as long as you can. This fact is truth about me I am one as well. Yes even at my age.
        In truth I have disproved transgender for the fact is to this very date there is no cite[s]. I have done a study that has taken over three years.
        You see so far one that claims to be a transgender is a sexual immoral person that engages in sexual immorality.That is what my studies have come up with plus I wrote a book[s] that have shown this very fact. You should know that for a good example that a male should not use a female’s bathroom, locker room, or even a changing room, for all they want to do is to be a pervert and create problems. Note this by definition that a pervert is one that engages in sexual immoral and sexual immorality. This definition therefore alone would make a transgender a pervert by that alone.
        Also by the definition is that you are the gender that you were conception by in your mothers womb. You may not like it but you are who you are at the time of your conception. therefore not one person can say other wise even you. That does come from my studies too.
        If at the time of your own conception you are a male you are a male for life.
        This fact is truth I have met some that have claim to be a transgender and the fact is they are taking drugs to try and hide who they are from the time they have been conceived in their mother’s womb. Note this is not a natural way, plus by definition this too makes them a pervert, and sexually immoral.
        Now you claim to be a judge and that is the fact[s] you bring out in your response to me. Okay now that you have and are a judge where is your cite[s] that can prove jut that?
        Here is one other fact and there is no cite[s] that can prove a human being to be a transgender. Now according to the definition you would have to say that all human beings on the face of the earth are born as transgender, and that is according to you and the definition you have without a cite[s]. So is everyone a transgender or not? I would like to see your answer to my question please. If not then how is transgender even to be determined in the first place? What determines transgender? Is hearsay the only why transgender is determined?
        Okay you and I both know hearsay has no cite[s]; therefore there is no proof without fact[s].
        Okay when I was younger I could pass as a girl does that make me a transgender? or because may thought that I was a girl does that make me a transgender?
        You see you cannot even answer those very questions at all.
        As you can now see there was no judgement in what I said, for the proof is on my side.
        I will invite you to respond please.
        Thank You very much.
        Thank You

          • In truth when us human beings look at the gender of a human being this would be determined at the time of conception as soon as the sperm connects with the egg. There is no such thing as a guess on the sex of the child at all. Yes one can predict the gender of a child 100% of the time. It is for this reason why us as human beings can say that transgender is a very phony idea and every human being does know that only a liberal would say otherwise, for all liberals will refuse to even do the research and look at the claims that are being made. Now that is the only reason why I always ask for a cite[s] from the liberals to prove what they are saying is truth, and to this date there has not even been one liberal to even prove what they are saying it even true. I would be so very glad to just review one cite[s] that a person comes up with to even prove that transgender is even something other than mythology. As you can see my question is where is the proof with a cite[s]. I will not look at hearsay, nor something that is a theory, for a theory is no more than a lie. This is why I look at a cite[s] only. Thank You

  6. I believe being transgender is partially due to a biological anomally and partially a choice to make one feel whole. The fact that many trans people feel a sense of difference or “otherness” which is only relieved once that person discovers their own identity. This suggests a biological connection to being trans.
    So, I do agree that biology has something to with being transgender.
    Also, though some people who identify on the transgender spectrum may have an “agenda”, not everyone does. Being transgender, myself, I am just barely figuring myself out. I’m definately not interested in peddling any particular set of ideas.
    Gender may very well be a social construct, but it was originally built around some form of biological differences.
    I agree with The Arbourist in this: gender is pushed on people from childhood. As a kid I was always told I was a girl and made to wear long hair and female clothes. But yet I always knew I was different and I didn’t just decide to be a guy one day. I just decided that I had something missing, then realised that I had wanted to be a boy as a child, so tried appearing more male, and felt better about myself.
    I do agree that gender stereotypes are harmful. This is why I wear makeup and jewelry sometimes. But the binary gender system will take many years to change, and I need to be accepted as what I am comfortable being sooner rather than later, so I still intend to do some traditionally masculine things so I may be accepted as male. Yet I will still continue to be myself, sensitive and not very athletic and a writer and physically small and non-muscular, and I will be happy to be a non-stereotypical man.
    I’m pretty sure that sex and gender are two different things. There are only four sexes, whereas there are a great variety of genders. Sex is determined by genitalia and hormones, while gender is a personal expression of internal understanding of sex. Gender may or may not be affected by sex, while sex can not be changed by gender, unless genetic manipulation becomes much more advanced.

  7. You know, it really doesn’t matter whether transgender is ‘biological’ or ‘belief’. What matters is for people to live fulfilled lives. Much effort has gone into psychological treatments, with no success at all. Indeed, many such treatments have led to an increased rate of suicide – something which is already much more common among trans people. However, being able to live and be accepted as the gender the trans person believes themselves to be, especially when supported by hormonal and surgical treatment, has a good track record of success in letting people live fulfilled lives.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s