[Dystopian Darkness]

Essentially the main argument use by the transgender community and its members/activists is based on some sort of gender theory that argues gender is entirely socially constructed and differs from biological sex - This is evidenced by studies done on trans people's brains that prove they don't feel comfortable in the body they were born into.

At first glance, this sounds reasonable, but here are some questions:

- If the explanation for being transgender is based on our brain properties (I don't know if this is the accurate terminology as I'm not a scientist) does that mean I can identify with whatever my brain tells me to? So if I feel like a dragon, why shouldn't I identify as such? Ok, dragons are fictional, but let's say I want to identify as a dog. Why is that any less valid than wanting to identify as queer, woman (being a man myself), gender-fluid, etc.?

- Should gender be legally abolished? If so, why should society support that measure?

- What legal and social criteria should exist for someone to identify with a specific gender? Transgender people argue that you don't need the genitalia, so can I, as a cis looking young man, identify as a woman and be taken seriously? How can we consider two alike people who identify as a different gender as different, given that they are physically similar? If a penis isn't the equivalent of being male, what is? How do we identify people's biological sex then?

- Why should transgenderism be treated any differently than people who are visually part of an ethnic group wanting to identify as an opposite, totally different one? If I'm white, can I identify as African and be taken seriously? What if my brain thinks I'm African?

- More importantly, why should being trans be accepted at all as normal behavior? Why should trans people be accepted more than someone who thinks they are a bird, a dog or Harry Potter? Why is it that one brain "difference" is seen as acceptable because it is good for progressivism but things like sexual fetishes can be seen as diseases?







Forgive my skepticism, I do not endorse acts of violence against people simply because they are transgender.

[Ganeshas Rat]

- More importantly, why should being trans be accepted at all as normal behavior? Why should trans people be accepted more than someone who thinks they are a bird, a dog or Harry Potter?

Those who've seen the ashes of Auschwitz would never ask such a question. Have you been at the white house? Have you been at the white house? That's why.

[mikema63]

- If the explanation for being transgender is based on our brain properties (I don't know if this is the accurate terminology as I'm not a scientist) does that mean I can identify with whatever my brain tells me to? So if I feel like a dragon, why shouldn't I identify as such? Ok, dragons are fictional, but let's say I want to identify as a dog. Why is that any less valid than wanting to identify as queer, woman (being a man myself), gender-fluid, etc.?

I utterly despise this argument, as a gay man I heard many people argue the same thing about gay people and it's basically nonsense. Both sides that argue this, both that it is natural and should be accepted and that it isn't natural and shouldn't be accepted, are committing the naturalism fallacy. Something being natural says nothing at all about it's morality or what should be done about it. The questions you need to ask are how allowing this specific case effects society and whether or not we should allow it. It in no way effects how we should view people who think they are animals if we accept transgenderism in our society.

- Should gender be legally abolished? If so, why should society support that measure?

Perhaps, perhaps not. It really depends on what you mean by abolishing gender. Certainly labeling what gender you are on documents is essentially pointless, especially in countries with legal gay marriage. There isn't really much purpose to specifying gender. If you mean more active measures to remove the concept of gender from society, then it would depend on the specific program you planned to implement.

- What legal and social criteria should exist for someone to identify with a specific gender? Transgender people argue that you don't need the genitalia, so can I, as a cis looking young man, identify as a woman and be taken seriously? How can we consider two alike people who identify as a different gender as different, given that they are physically similar? If a penis isn't the equivalent of being male, what is? How do we identify people's biological sex then?

1.) There probably shouldn't be a legal criteria, we should just stop worrying about gender in legal matters. Social criteria would develop organically and depend on the society.

2.) I wouldn't take you seriously, someone else might. I honestly think if we dropped the idea that men had to be a certain way and women had to be a certain way the point would become moot. There isn't really a reason why it should matter how you think of yourself.

3.)Men and women are very physically similar in a lot of ways, humans actually don't have a lot of sexual dimorphism compared to most species. Yet we still find it perfectly easy to consider them substantially different. We often consider to men to be substantially different for a plethora of reasons that don't relate to genitals in the least. Unless you think all men are identical in every facet I fail to see why you wouldn't be able to tell a difference. Just the fact that the one man identifies as a woman is in itself a substantial difference. It's hardly like transgender people conform to every stereotypical activity of their born sex while identifying as the opposite sex.

4.) being male is an abstract idea about how men should act and behave in our society, biological sex is the literal biology that you are born with. Our idea's about how men should act and behave change frequently and from generation to generation. Biological sex never has.

- Why should transgenderism be treated any differently than people who are visually part of an ethnic group wanting to identify as an opposite, totally different one? If I'm white, can I identify as African and be taken seriously? What if my brain thinks I'm African?

Well, are you referring to culture or literal biology? If someone identifies with African culture because they were raised in Africa that is an entirely different thing than believing your skin is actually brown.

- More importantly, why should being trans be accepted at all as normal behavior? Why should trans people be accepted more than someone who thinks they are a bird, a dog or Harry Potter? Why is it that one brain "difference" is seen as acceptable because it is good for progressivism but things like sexual fetishes can be seen as diseases?

1.) It doesn't impact your life measurably to do so.

2.) These people believe they are animals and fictional characters, trans people identify with an abstract concept of how a man or woman should be that doesn't match their genetals. One is more harmful to the people involved and society in general. We can have men identify as women without damaging society, men shitting on statues not so much.

3.) The brain thing is a stupid stupid argument.

Forgive my skepticism, I do not endorse acts of violence against people simply because they are transgender.

Skepticism is good, and so is not killing people who aren't hurting you.

Those who've seen the ashes of Auschwitz would never ask such a question. Have you been at the white house? Have you been at the white house? That's why.

Why actually answer when you can babble?

[The Sabbaticus]

- If the explanation for being transgender is based on our brain properties (I don't know if this is the accurate terminology as I'm not a scientist) does that mean I can identify with whatever my brain tells me to? So if I feel like a dragon, why shouldn't I identify as such? Ok, dragons are fictional, but let's say I want to identify as a dog. Why is that any less valid than wanting to identify as queer, woman (being a man myself), gender-fluid, etc.?

The argument is that it still falls within the realm of human experience. A canine or a fictional creature will necessarily fall outside this realm, as you have no capacity for an experiential identification with these beings. But then you have those wilderness children growing up with animals, which posits the philosophical query of what the difference is between humans and animals.

I believe under certain conditions the children are also lastingly damaged in their lingual faculties.

Anyway, in that it becomes more a question of being able to function in society and preserving a measure of autonomy. A socio-economic cost-benefit analysis of allowing people to transfer to a canine identity will become relevant. Perhaps they could arrange for certain legal provisions, analogous (in some respect) to the newly minted gay marriage institute. Where the 'transcanine' individual can only assume the canine identity, if he's legally bound to a human master. But that would infringe upon the legal principle of personal liberty and conjure up impressions of slavery.

Also, consider the exhaustive cosmetic procedures required for a proper transfer to a canine form. Full-body hair implantations, artificial musculo-skeletal deformations, dental work, finger amputations -- the radical alterations required would be fraught with risk and cost a substantial amount.

No, it's simply too impractical. But then so is artificial reproductive technology in order to facilitate and/or simulate parturition.

[ThirdTerm]

It's caused by a common genetic disorder, which occurs in one in 15,000 births. People with this disorder have 46XY chromosomes which have male hormones that cannot function properly because of a genetic mutation. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Those with the 46,XY disorder of sex development (46,XY DSD) are women who were born technically male and they look and behave like a girl. This kind of odd behaviours could start in their early childhood and transgender children should be able to pick one gender over another as their gender cannot be biologically specified.

[youtube]CGPRNbxON8g[/youtube]

46,XY disorder of sex development (46,XY DSD) is characterized by a 46,XY karyotype, ambiguous genitalia with mild to severe penoscrotal hypospadias with or without chordee, dysgenetic testes, reduced to no sperm production, and müllerian structures that range from absent to presence of a fully developed uterus and fallopian tubes. 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis (46,XY CGD) is characterized by a 46,XY karyotype, normal female external genitalia, completely undeveloped (”streak”) gonads, no sperm production, and presence of normal müllerian structures. The diagnosis of 46,XY DSD and 46,XY CGD relies on clinical findings, gonadal histology, chromosome analysis, and testing to detect changes in one of the following five genes: SRY (deletion or sequence variant), NR5A1 (SF1) (sequence variant), DHH (sequence variant), NR0B1 (DAX1 duplication), or WNT4 (duplication). Treatment of manifestations: Individuals with 46,XY CGD are raised as females. Individuals with 46,XY DSD may be raised as males or females; some individuals require surgery to repair the external genitalia and to create and/or enlarge the vagina. Abdominal dysgenetic gonads are at increased risk for gonadal tumors (most commonly dysgerminoma) and should be surgically removed; streak gonads and dysgenetic gonads are at increased risk for gonadoblastoma and should be surgically removed. Typically, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is required from puberty onward. Women with 46,XY CGD and with 46,XY DSD and müllerian structures may become pregnant through zygote donation. Males with 46,XY DSD may possibly donate gametes via intracytoplasmic sperm insemination (ICSI).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1547/

[Noob]

What it boils down to is liberal-individualism, and the Enlightenment's roots in Christianity, of which it constitutes a secular, materialised version. Liberal freedom supposes freedom from all constraints not freely chosen by the autonomous self, including all collective identities and traditions, viewed as archaic, arbitrary vestiges of the past. Liberalism holds that the individual is the beginning and end to all social reality, and that man only enters into society to avoid "the war of all against all" (Hobbes). Not respecting the autonomous self's right to act as it pleases without constraints is an affront to the subject's civil rights in a liberal society. As Benoist wrote in describing liberal freedom, "Individual dignity does not stem from the essential nature of the individual, but only from the fact that he is entitled to those rights".

Of course, if one disagrees that 'individuals' are totally self-sufficient atoms capable of making intelligent choices, this inflated conception of the self-contained individual which modern gender theory draws on goes out the window. It isn't a surprise from this that notions of 'tolerance' and 'acceptance' are now conflated: to only tolerate doesn't necessarily mean respecting and upholding the dignity of all, since some modern theories of human rights believe 'dignity' to be essential to man which cannot be forgone. In reality, there is no "right to respect".

In any case, modern gender theory proposes (in for instance the way of Judith Butler) that there is no necessary connection between sex and 'gender'. Some, such as Christine Delphy, even propose that gender precedes sex. Naturally, no evidence is presented for this, but for Delphy the idea that instead "sex precedes gender" is "theoretically unjustifiable", and is "holding back our thinking on gender", and she goes on, "the capacity to imagine another world is an essential element in scientific progress". It's essentially invented theology which argues that scientific categories are arbitrary and thus occupies the realm of unreality. Back in reality, the qualifier for being a man would entail having been a boy, and the qualifier for being a woman would entail having been a girl. Biological sex and gender identity are linked, since the former conditions how we think, act, and feel, which constitutes a large portion of the latter (there are of course social pressures and influences in society with regards to gender identity, but their relevance cannot be absolutised, or applied to biological sex). Body parts specific to biological sex do not capture the essence of manhood or womanhood, but they are the result of that essence. In biological terms, this corresponds to the SRY gene, which determines in its absence a female or in its presence a male. Outliers that do not line up with either biological sex are deformed - there are only two sexes. Outliers from gender role archetypes so long as roles themselves are upheld (ie, so long as there are roles, and everybody isn't categorised as one homogeneous androgynous blob) aren't an issue.

If you disagree with the wild strains of modern 'gender theory', you may be labelled something along the lines of a "transphobe". Bear in mind, however, that this doesn't refer to any sort of fear, pathology or irrationality, but it is instead a moral denunciation. This bastardisation of language for ideological reasons has been occurring for some time now, as diverse authors from George Orwell to Karl Kraus have noted. Similarly, think of how the epithet "witch!" might have functioned in the Middle Ages, and note the modern-day analogue "fascist!". It's the way of some to shut down a debate, and badge of honour, really.

[mikema63]

Well, regardless, why should we prevent it and discriminate against people for it?

[Noob]

With regards to prevention, assuming you're talking about no going back sex-change operations (since nobody can stop how another person self-identifies, putting aside that self-identity means essentially nothing), the result can be regret and identity confusion, which results in disorientation, feelings of emptiness, loss of self-esteem: attempted suicide rates for post-operation transgenders remain high (statistics in article, feel free to not read about the author's life story). The cause is largely preëxisting depression and mental illness, the article says, and not anything extraneous, such as bullying, although such a thing could understandably exacerbate a person's ill condition.

With regards to discrimination, it's clear that the meaning of 'tolerate' has been changed in the minds of some from 'passive indifference' to 'active acceptance'. I've already addressed this above in that the demand to be seen as 'equal' means acknowledging others' confused conditions in the public sphere, and ultimately, their 'dignity'. 'Discrimination' becomes 'not discriminating for'.

Yet, if some people are dead set on undergoing a potentially ruining 'sex-change surgery', then I really don't care. There are bigger problems for some to be dealing with. To sanction it or have an alternate set of values foisted upon a majority population for the sake of the 'rights' of an outlier population, however, can't be anything but a flood of nihilism.

[mikema63]

Great, so the only thing you want is to be allowed to be an asshole to trans people. So bitch away about how gross they are to your hearts content.

[Decky]

I would far rather get rid of Rangers fans than Trans people.

[Noob]

Great, so the only thing you want is to be allowed to be an asshole to trans people. So bitch away about how gross they are to your hearts content.

"Transphobe!", "witch!", "fascist!", "fear my moral denunciations, I am upset by your argument!", "I have no coherent rebuttal!".

Bear in mind that I made no value judgement on how transgender people may or may not be æsthetically challenged. It's clear that my argument amounts to more than 'wanting to be mean'. Furthermore, I do not go out of my way to associate with transgender circles (or the types of people who feel a great affinity with them), so there would be little chance for me "to be an asshole" to them. It's a wonder you tried to engage me in the first place: did you reply to make sure that you definitely do disagree with my position, or just make a display of sassiness typical to modern liberals and the proponents of identity politics when other people don't share their opinions?

[mikema63]

"Transphobe!", "witch!", "fascist!", "fear my moral denunciations, I am upset by your argument!", "I have no coherent rebuttal!".

All you have is a gut feeling, so I fail to see your superiority.

[Noob]

your superiority

It's telling that this is what came to your mind. Regardless, this conversation clearly ended, and a debate never really began. You've provided three one-liners in my direction, and the indirect insult "asshole".

[Godstud]

Why should what a person does with their own body be any concern of yours? If they dress, look and behave as a female/male, where is the harm in treating them as such, since that is what they wish?

People against transgenderism are really just afraid of their own sexuality. They're afraid someone being a female, but not born to it, could "get them". Their discrimination and prejudice is just plain old PATHETIC!

[Drlee]

If the explanation for being transgender is based on our brain properties (I don't know if this is the accurate terminology as I'm not a scientist) does that mean I can identify with whatever my brain tells me to? So if I feel like a dragon, why shouldn't I identify as such?

That is such a dramatic oversimplification of why people are transgendered that it has launched you in the wrong direction. You understand that when one's brain is convinced, one is convinced. It is not a notion. It is not a mild sensation to which one responds. It is a physiological certainty which is externally questioned by others.

So if I feel like a dragon, why shouldn't I identify as such?

As long as you don't eat the villagers, yes.

Some of us would assert that the true measure of democracy is its predilection to leave people alone absent some reason not to. Here goes the age thing again. I remember these exact same arguments being made with regard to both race and religion. Particularly race though because of the biological component. We still see them here from time to time. But this is the crux of the matter.

With regards to discrimination, it's clear that the meaning of 'tolerate' has been changed in the minds of some from 'passive indifference' to 'active acceptance'. I've already addressed this above in that the demand to be seen as 'equal' means acknowledging others' confused conditions in the public sphere, and ultimately, their 'dignity'. 'Discrimination' becomes 'not discriminating for'.

Yes. Just as it has changed with regard to race. We were once confused about black folks and now we are less confused. We once embraced "passive indifference" (separate but equal) and now we practice "acceptance". In fact we have codified acceptance into the law. Why? Because we have come to realize that the "dignity" of every human being is a real thing. We (at least the smart ones among us) realize that we ought to have a good reason to discriminate against the behaviors of another person. We realize that accepting this doctrine elevates the sanctity of the individual under the law. It elevates all of us as we come to realize that we ought not create laws that limit free expression as this is one of the few legitimately worrisome slippery-slopes. Further we have come to realize that any attempt to isolate members of our society does indeed harm them. In the case of transgendered people you made that argument yourself when you said:

The cause is largely preëxisting depression and mental illness, the article says, and not anything extraneous, such as bullying, although such a thing could understandably exacerbate a person's ill condition.

(While here I wish to take exception to the use of the term "mental illness". There was a time when Gender Identity Dysphoria was labeled an illness. It no longer is. And for good reason I can go into if you choose not to read about it from far better sources than I.)

To sanction it or have an alternate set of values foisted upon a majority population for the sake of the 'rights' of an outlier population, however, can't be anything but a flood of nihilism.

Do I hear you making the argument that conformity is the first-best hope for society? I can give you some wonderful places to live if you believe this to be true. I commend to you the country of Saudi Arabia where you are not allowed to import a Bible. Where homosexuality is suppressed with the sword or rope. Where your daughter might be beaten for smiling at a boy. It is the very act of "sanctioning alternate values" that led to modern democratic societies in the first place. Why nihilism? The acceptance and indeed welcoming of alternate views does not lead to the belief that life is meaningless. Just the opposite. Embracing the differences between us does not challenge the "meaning of life" it elevates it. The acceptance of black people, gay people, transgendered people, Jews, Catholics and Irish people has not led to the rejection of moral principles, it has enhanced them. Do you argue that I, as a Christian, am somehow made less "Christian" because I accept and honor these folks among us? All of them at one time or another were/are ostracized by some Christians on so-called Biblical principles?

I challenge your basic principles that society has a compelling reason to act with regard to transgendered individuals except to welcome them into the fold as equal members of our society. Yes they are people who face special problems. So are all "different" people at first. One thing is certain. They will face fewer problems the more we accept them. As I have matured from the archetypal angry young man to the mellow old Christian I have come to realize that before I invest a great deal of my diminishing time in a "problem" I should first ask myself.....Do I have a dog in this fight? If the answer is 'no' I can be fairly certain that to act on that problem will leave me unhappy, someone else unhappy, and society no better off in the end.

[mikema63]

It's telling that this is what came to your mind. Regardless, this conversation clearly ended, and a debate never really began. You've provided three one-liners in my direction, and the indirect insult "asshole".

It must be sad for you that you can't come up with any actual arguments to justify your hatred of random people you don't know.

I'm so mean to you too, it must be terrible to be you.

[Noob]

People against transgenderism are really just afraid of their own sexuality. They're afraid someone being a female, but not born to it, could "get them". Their discrimination and prejudice is just plain old PATHETIC!

Thank you for gracing the thread with your unsupported, vague assumptions for what is occurring in others' heads, Godstud. Rest assured these first two sentences do not apply to me, although by your criteria the third sentence would.

___

such as bullying, although such a thing could understandably exacerbate a person's ill condition.

(While here I wish to take exception to the use of the term "mental illness". There was a time when Gender Identity Dysphoria was labeled an illness. It no longer is. And for good reason I can go into if you choose not to read about it from far better sources than I.)

I should have been clearer. I was referring to depression or preëxisting mental illness as the 'ill condition'. In any case, science does not "uncover truths" (nature has no secrets, only humans do): it follows politics, and ideological developments. It is not fixed, by definition, always a 'work in progress'.

Why nihilism? The acceptance and indeed welcoming of alternate views does not lead to the belief that life is meaningless. Just the opposite. Embracing the differences between us does not challenge the "meaning of life" it elevates it.

That depends on what framework and what vantage point you're viewing meaning from. Nihilism is not a synonym for 'meaninglessness'. What is the meaning of meaning? Is it (faux-)equality and diversity defined in liberal (and secularised Christian) terms? For you, perhaps, yes.

Do I hear you making the argument that conformity is the first-best hope for society?

You may be mishearing that, yes. I was simply saying that a society needs clear values. I'll ignore your tangent on Saudi Arabia, as though there is some sort of parallel between anything of what I was saying and that miserable entity. And I'm not entirely sure you were getting at with 'the acceptance of XYZ doesn't lead to...'. I fail to see how I am advocating some sort of cis-het / trans apartheid.

In my preceding response:

Outliers from gender role archetypes so long as roles themselves are upheld (ie, so long as there are roles, and everybody isn't categorised as one homogeneous androgynous blob) aren't an issue.

Do I have a dog in this fight? If the answer is 'no' I can be fairly certain that to act on that problem will leave me unhappy, someone else unhappy, and society no better off in the end.

See here:

Yet, if some people are dead set on undergoing a potentially ruining 'sex-change surgery', then I really don't care. There are bigger problems for some to be dealing with.

That's what tolerance is: I am simply sceptical about the efficacy of 'sex-change operations' in making people comfortable with the identity they wish to align themselves to, and so would discourage it (note the two links that I posted), but probably wouldn't disallow it. Also note the high attempted suicide statistics for post-operation transgenders, so that negates your "all better for society" quip. Bear in mind that I am not an individualist and have different notions of what the 'common good' must entail.

mellow old Christian

A work in progress, but it looks as though you're getting there...

___

It must be sad for you that you can't come up with any actual arguments to justify your hatred of random people you don't know.

I'm so mean to you too, it must be terrible to be you.

Oh, you're still here, clinging on. There was a big essay up there that I posted; you didn't (and seem to be unable to) address any of of those 'actual arguments', I'm afraid. I fail to see how any of what I've said here is tantamount to 'hatred'. Another of your mistakes is conflating "insult" with "feeling insulted". You'll forgive me if I don't assign any value to neither your insults, nor your moaning: but keep asserting your dissatisfaction and state of upset with what I'm posting here. Emoticons seem to comprise half your 'arguments'. Keep at it, mikema63. Any more vapid replies from your end?

[mikema63]

Your entire post amounted to, I think it's stupid but I won't do anything about it and we shouldn't stop them. It's a big long paragraph rant to make sure we know you don't like transpeople.

For someone who accuses others of vague notions your posts utterly lack insight or argument other than your personal feelings.

[Noob]

You made an exceedingly poor reading of it, then. I'd have to ask again: why did you try to engage me in the first place? To sob in my general direction about how I'm not respecting the dignity and 'rights' of transgenders, because I don't believe in such a thing as a 'gender continuum'?

It's a big long paragraph rant to make sure we know you don't like transpeople.

Yurrrrp love me those gurd ol' fashioned values!

For someone who accuses others of vague notions your posts utterly lack insight or argument other than your personal feelings.

Is that what you're going with now? My attempt at explaining the logic behind modern gender theory and refuting of the line of thought of like Judith Butler and Christine Delphy, whilst drawing on the thought of Benoist and people like Diego Fusaro (who is an Italian neo-Marxist) is limited to 'my personal feelings'? Could you come up with anything more desperate?

Of course, this is just a way of de-politicising an issue, and relegating the dissenting opinions of people who have "hatred in their hearts" to the zone of the private sphere. No thanks. I'm not sorry that I don't care for the liberal nonsense of modern-day 'gender theory' that you subscribe to. Can you not tolerate freedom of thought? That's diversity - get used to it.

Your attempt to make this topic personal is laughable. You haven't made it clear as to where my 'hatred' or 'negative feelings' lie. You haven't attempted to even engage anything that I've said, and I'll take that as a sign that you cannot. It appears that you just feel negatively about my person: remember that I don't care about the value judgements of people on the internet, let alone yours.

At this point, your one-line or two-line replies in this thread amount to spam. Try harder, and stop acting like a crying child. Or keep digging yourself a bigger hole to sit and sulk in. Any more cards to play?

[mikema63]

You made an exceedingly poor reading of it, then. I'd have to ask again: why did you try to engage me in the first place?

Do you feel that you are far too superior to be disagreed with?

To sob in my general direction about how I'm not respecting the dignity and 'rights' of transgenders, because I don't believe in such a thing as a 'gender continuum'?

I've not said anything about dignity or rights. Are we just making things up now?

Yurrrrp love me those gurd ol' fashioned values!

As long as we agree that your feelings don't have a rational basis.

Is that what you're going with now?

I calls em like I sees em.

My attempt at explaining the logic behind modern gender theory and refuting of the line of thought of like Judith Butler and Christine Delphy, whilst drawing on the thought of Benoist and people like Diego Fusaro (who is an Italian neo-Marxist) is limited to 'my personal feelings'? Could you come up with anything more desperate?

You didn't describe gender theory, you charactured two peoples position on gender theory. Do you consider not mentioning people to be using them as sources? You made blank assertions that your views were true and didn't reference or source any of these people. If your going to make stuff up about your own posts at least edit them.

Of course, this is just a way of de-politicising an issue

Everything is political.

nd relegating the dissenting opinions of people who have "hatred in their hearts" to the zone of the private sphere. No thanks. I'm not sorry that I don't care for the liberal nonsense of modern-day 'gender theory' that you subscribe to. Can you not tolerate freedom of thought? That's diversity - get used to it.

Wow, you sure showed that strawman who was boss! Actually, you failed to even argue against your strawman of me. Just posting how you feel about a position isn't an argument.

Your attempt to make this topic personal is laughable. You haven't made it clear as to where my 'hatred' or 'negative feelings' lie. You haven't attempted to even engage anything that I've said, and I'll take that as a sign that you cannot. It appears that you just feel negatively about my person: remember that I don't care about the value judgements of people on the internet, let alone yours.

It's not particularly personal, I dislike everyone who has a hardon about trans people lately. I didn't realize I was supposed to psychoanalyze the source of your dislike of transpeople as well as Identify it. I suppose it could always be your mother or something.

I've engaged what you've said at your own level, you make long winded emotional appeals that your intuitions and feelings are right without actually argument and try to cloak them in some sort of respectability. I have never seen you make an actual argument, you always just pop into a thread to complain about how you don't like X,Y, or Z.

I'm glad you don't care about value judgements, you can stop making posts that are nothing but your own value judgements.

At this point, your one-line or two-line replies in this thread amount to spam.

Report me, or stop whining that it doesn't take more than a line or two to point out your emotional antics.

Try harder, and stop acting like a crying child.

N00B: I feel like transpeople are bad.

Mike: That's pretty stupid.

N00b: Wah stop acting like a crying child wah.

Or keep digging yourself a bigger hole to sit and sulk in.

Any more cards to play?

Any actual arguments against trans people that go beyond you feeling like their icky and feeling like you don't know modern gender theory which you apparently haven't even read?