The costs of trans visibility

Your understanding of this is not correct. Trans women are women regardless of genitals. But just as clothes and hair can be outward expressions of gender, so can genitals. So there is a mismatch that doesn't invalidate gender identity.

by Luciom P

lololololololol

As a human being, when you are in deep distress over a prolonged period, the conscious self will awaken and seek change. This is a threat to the social self because the social self is in the driver’s seat.

The alternative and solution is found within the individuating self, which is being subdued by the social self. The problem is, as part of the necessary socialization process, the conscious self has aligned with the social self and trusts it fully.

Before identifying as transgender, these people felt this prolonged distress. Often as a result of not fitting in with gender norms. The conscious self springs into action and by this time has begun to lose complete trust in the social self. Part of the conscious self starts to realize that truth is with the one who is being oppressed and victimized by the social self - the individuating self.

The social self then sabotages this by offering up an oppressed identity in the form of the trans identity. The conscious self, while divided, hasnÂ’t completely lost trust in the social self so it accepts this offer as true enough.

However, it’s not true enough. The distress continues.. even after gender affirmation therapy. Even after more societal acceptance.

by Luciom P

This is going to be a tough one for languages with gender.

You seem to have trouble gasping anything on this subject. It's true, the study doesn't specifically say trans being driven by social contagion. Other experts have laid out the case and I've posted it. I mentioned that. It also mentioned depression. You know what group has astronomical levels of depression? Guess what tweet 2 talks about? Increased depression in lgbt even though they've gained significant acceptance. This info combined with the others I mentioned does build a very strong case

The fact you can't connect any dots while failing to give a definition of a woman, explain the differences between trans and anorexia etc is probably not a coincidence. maybe you're just a fish out of water here.

But if you don't accept gender theory then someone claiming to be born in the wrong body or claiming "I'm a woman" while having a penis, taking hormones, etc would be engaging in a high level of delusion. Because unless you subscribe to gender theory, looking at your womanly penis is quite delusional. Maybe now would be a great time to give your definition of a woman. What is a woman?

I've got some questions that I think will illustrate our differences better. I'll answer and respond but I don't want to re-frame the points beforehand

1. What is a woman? Definition

2. Are gay people born that way? What percent are born gay and what percent become gay via other avenues in your estimation

3. Are trans people born trans? What percent are born trans and what percent become that way in your estimation?

4. What is trans? Like is the majority of it women trapped in mens bodies and men trapped in womens bodies?

5. We have sex, personality, and sexuality. Is there anything that "gender" covers that isn't in those 3 categories?

I already addressed this in my post that you quoted.

So instead of answering any of my questions to help clarify your position, you just ask me questions of your own?

i'm not trying to take sides here, just pointing out you're doing to him exactly what you're complaining about him doing

ignoring the questions and asking your own

haven't really been following your conversation so you could be on the correct side here holding out until he answers your stuff first, but it's still not a good look and perhaps he'd be more receptive to answering your own questions if you set the example and acted as the better person answering his instead of just continuing the back and forth of "no you first"

He did ask first

The reason I responded with some question is because obviously nobody ever answers the question "what is a woman?". Ever. There's been a bunch of different stories as to why they won't answer or pretending like they did in some mystery post archived somewhere, etc, but I never get an actual definition. The second reason is I think his question is poorly formulated and by him answering my questions I can just kill two birds with one stone by highlighting our differences and describing why I think he's wrong

ganstaman no you're not piecing it together correctly and I don't know what you mean by truly "trans". I asked you those questions in part so you could make your position clear. People think they're the opposite sex. It's real to them. They want to live as the opposite sex. That's real to them.

"What percentage of those who say they're trans do you think come about it through this pathway vs something else? Do you believe anyone can truly be transgender?" I don't see how I could answer this in a useful way unless you were to answer my questions. Like I could ask you if Liah Thomas should compete in women's swimming and you could say yes. Unless I get the details behind your reasoning, what you mean by "woman", etc I really don't understand much about your position or reasoning. Until I have that, I can't give you a great counterargument or response if I'm on the opposite side of the argument

I don't think your questions were formulated all that well

they define woman (gender) as "anyone who self identifies as a woman".

yes it has absolutely no meaning but they define it as such

they define woman (biological sex) more or less like we do

You've played this shtick before. Uke provided an answer on April 24: https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showp...

You posted a few hours later to say that no one answers you. You then stayed away from the thread until April 27 when you said that uke wouldn't answer you. You repeated this claim on April 29, to which uke responded that you just never engaged with the post where he actually attempted a definition. But you never responded to that uke post and instead stayed out of this thread until June 16.

So it's hard for me to believe that you're asking this in good faith. When someone tried to actually engage with you on this question, you just kept saying that they didn't and ignored any attempts to reengage.

I was trying to clarify what point you were making. You posted a tweet about the social contagion of mental illness and one about depression LGBTQ kids (or something like that). Why? What are you saying with these?

To basically just copy what uke said months ago, humans are sexually dimorphic. As a society, we associate a number of traits involving appearance, psychology, social roles, etc with the sexes, and this is what is known as gender. A woman is a human who self-identifies as one who has/expressed those traits associated with the female sex. A transgender person is one who's brain tells them they're a woman but their genitals are male.

Both sexual orientation and gender identity have some genetic components. I'm sure there is some research into the heritability of them, and while I don't know the numbers off hand, I will accept whatever is commonly accepted. There do seem to be other factors, such as in-utero exposure to different hormone levels. I'm not aware of any great evidence of other factors, so at the moment I'm at 100% born this way but I can update that if you have evidence to provide.

I mostly just want to be sure that it's worth the effort to even respond if I'm just going to be ignored. If he just wants to steer the conversation one way and not engage with anything I say, then I don't have an interest. But this is now seeming promising.

Yeah, connecting the dots

When people refute your claims you just brush them off like you have ever even interacted with a trans person in your whole life. You don't know the first thing about their struggles.

To imply they should be happy because they have increased levels of acceptance (but less than status quo) is like saying that Black people should have been content with being 4/5ths a human because they used to be 3/5ths

They are still discriminated against heavily to this day. You are quite literally proof of that.

Do you think the dichotomy of capitalist pride month where corporations fake pander to sell products, which is supposed to magically cure all the LGBTQ problems, mixed with increased resentment from a small but focused group would lend to better mental health or worse mental health?
These are questions basic to a comprehensive analysis, which I'm sure you've fully considered because you have deep empathy and understanding of the LGBTQ community. Fish outa water

the 3/5 was a compromise of the opposite kind that you guys keep saying, the slavers wanted full 5/5, the non-slave states wanted 0. Because it was about apportioning federal districts.

That they counted 3/5 (while not having the vote) was a negative vs 0, because that gave slave states more power than they should have had.

This is annoying. This question has been asked and answered many, many times on this forum, by me and others. As Ganstaman detailed, it was recently answered by me - responding to you - and then you never engaged with the answer and abandoned thread, only to come back and pretend the whole thing never happened and we are dodging the answer.

Now you don't have to LIKE my answer. But you can't pretend it was never given.

the 3/5 compromise HELPED THE SLAVE OWNERS, and it wasn't about black rights which were a full ZERO, not 3/5. They never had 3/5 rights.

3/5 was only about how much to count them to apportion congressional house seats.

The 3/5 compromise allowed slave states to have more power in congress than they should have had, making it harder for blacks to get ANY right for longer.

I won't report "sludge monster" but i expect an apology

Quit it with the name calling, per favore mi amici ♥

Me: Its like black people should ahve been happy being considered less than a human being because its a little more less

You: Nuh uh, your side wanted black people to be worth 0

Buddy, I didn't have a side 200 years ago and the point your making has zero relevance on the point im making. You are just trying to discredit the fact that we used to consider black people less than a human and I'm using that as a comparison to the current situation with Trans people. I don't owe you an apology because I know exactly what you are trying to do and its awful.

Crossnerd, all you ahve to do is look at his recent posting about black people in other threads to understand exactly what he is trying to imply here and you definitely know better.

Try to reread. You wrote 4/5 would have been better than 3/5 but not enough anyway.

I just tried to teach you that 4/5, or 5/5, would have been WORSE FOR BLACKS. Because the 3/5 wasn't about RIGHTS. Was ONLY ABOUT GIVING HOUSE SEATS TO THE SLAVERS.

Then you went ballistic because you didn't understand what i was talking about.

Blacks were never considered 3/5 for RIGHTS. Black slaves had NO constitutional rights. Blacks were counted 3/5 to help their OWNERS.

You tried a nonsensical comparison between trans , and the mistreatment of blacks (an horrifying, completly unjustified example i would say), and you got it backward in your example (not realizing the 3/5 thing was a NEGATIVE FOR BLACKS, not a partial yet-to-be-completed recognition of their rights) and i just tried to correct that.

It's not that black slaves were considered "only partially humans". They weren't considered humans at all wrt rights.

Well i didn't name call.

While the 3/5 comment was evocative of the original constitutional slavery compromise, I don't think it was meaning to imply that it should have been 4/5, or to imply anything else about the original constitution.

He just threw that in as a simile, and the side argument about whether or not that compromise was good for black people is irrelevant to the discussion.

You can't be serious. Neither you or uke provided a definition of a woman. How on earth could that word salad provide any meaning? Sexually dimorphic? ? Humans usually have 2 eyes. Let me place something that sounds scientific at the front so it appears as though it's attached to a totally constructed theory rooted in soup

"As a society we associate traits and that is known as gender". I asked you what a woman is. Not what gender ideology is. At no point are you defining what a woman is. We already have personality, sexuality, and sex. Where does gender add anything to these categories and magically create something?

Is Liah Thomas a woman? Well we are sexually dimorphic species. Correct which is why Thomas and their penis competed in mens swimming first. But what does that have to do with defining a woman? What does that leave us?

"As a society, we associate a number of traits involving appearance, psychology, social roles, etc with the sexes, and this is what is known as gender. A woman is a human who self-identifies as one who has/expressed those traits associated with the female sex." The old swticharoo is bolded. Like you have to realize this is circular nonsense, no? So a woman is anyone who observes females (actual women), sees a pattern of stereotypes, and wants to be a female-like or feels they are female-like? That's a woman? Someone who can associate stereotypes to females and decide they belong in that category?

All you're doing is noticing Males and females have stereotypical traits. This is known as masculinity and femininity. These are also called personality traits. Many women enjoy hunting, combat sports, etc etc. This has absolutely nothing to do with their "gender". It's their personality. If a heterosexual girl has these interests, she's a woman or called a tomboy. If she says she's trans then all of the sudden these same personality traits become gender traits and demonstrate she's a man. How is this not obvious to someone who's thought about this for a few minutes? You like fishing? Oh you're a bit like a man. You're a bit trans and you didn't even know it.

Your attempt to define woman is a total lack of a definition. Woman as a category can't even exist or be enforced this way. Which is why we see 6'4 people with penises dominating womens sports and serial rapists being sent to womens prison. It's all just magical thinking

I share the sentiment with homosexuality

Are you saying it's the same for being trans?

They're not going to give you a clear and objective definition of a woman, but that doesn't really matter and doesn't prove anything in particular.

If you are confused by basic scientific terms you can just google them.

Again, you don't have to like the answers you are getting, but please stop pretending you aren't getting answers.