Transgender Man....gives birth to baby

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: turbonium1

An homosexual man knows he's a man.

Yet could be Identifying himself as a woman, in a woman being the gender sexually, and/or emotionally bonded, to a man.

He still knows he's a man, of course, but these are strong features to identify himself as being of female gender.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yet could be Identifying himself as a woman

No he won't since he isn't born a transgender person.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: turbonium1

Yet could be Identifying himself as a woman

No he won't since he isn't born a transgender person.

We are not born as any other gender, only male or female....

Chromosomes show which of two genders we are, in essence.

Having mixed genitalia is not a third gender.


I have never heard of ANY species with three distinct, natural genders.

Nor would it make any sense to have a third gender. A third 'wheel' would be completely useless.

I've seen several people who all identified themselves as chickens.

When the hypnotist told them they were all chickens, they were absolutely convinced they were chickens. It didn't matter how much we laughed at them, clucking and flapping their arms around on the stage. They didn't care what we said, or did. It didn't embarrass them to be laughed at, or anything else.


Sometimes, 'identifying yourself' doesn't work so well!

a reply to: turbonium1

I've seen several people who all identified themselves as chickens.

Straw Man
Begging The Question

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: turbonium1

I've seen several people who all identified themselves as chickens.

Straw Man
Begging The Question

While you didn't understand it was meant in jest, it isn't a straw man, or begging the question.


To 'identify' what you are, when you are NOT, is impossible. They simply believe they have identified what they should have been born as. To say you should have been a woman, because you identify yourself as a woman, is not possible, in any way. This person is not a woman. A woman, or man, does not 'identify' herself as being a woman, or a man. Every woman is different, every man is different, there is no need to 'identify' it. You know what you are. Nobody identifies what they are, along the way. It doesn't make sense.

A man does not know, whatsoever, what it is, what it feels like, to be a woman. This man who says he 'identifies' himself as being a woman has no clue what a woman actually is, or does, or feels like. And a woman does not 'identify' herself, she already IS a woman, she knows she is a woman.

Saying you are 'identifying' something you are not, something you will never be, something you will never know, is nonsense.

We all born as meant to be, nothing else. No mysterious gender switching going on in the womb.

Accept the life you were given, as you were born to this world. It is the greatest gift, of life, and of love, which we all were meant to live, from birth, to death.

a reply to: turbonium1

You seem not to understand that transgender people are aware of their biological sexes. I've linked to an article on MRI scans on transgender brains.
It's very rare that the brains and the bodies develop separate ways, gender wise, during pregnancy. We see that all the time with intersex people. But it happens.

originally posted by: RowanBean
a reply to: turbonium1

You seem not to understand that transgender people are aware of their biological sexes. I've linked to an article on MRI scans on transgender brains.
It's very rare that the brains and the bodies develop separate ways, gender wise, during pregnancy. We see that all the time with intersex people. But it happens.

This study takes a small sampling of subjects who say they identify themselves as the opposite gender.

There are COUNTLESS variables one could use to slant their study from that point.

One feature 'tends' to be more prominent in the trans brains, but not all of them. Another feature is the same thing, and so on.

The non-trans brains also have the same features as the trans brains, but as long as it isn't more than the trans brains, it becomes a 'trans' feature, or 'tends to be', as they say.


If you've ever delved deep into scientific research papers, you'll find that most of them do not prove anything at all. Other studies show a completely different result, and it proves nothing either.


Sorry, but this paper proven nothing, it is merely implied, by its title. 'Tends to' is a red flag, btw, when you see it appear in these papers.

Some studies are done with the clear intent to support a position, against all others.

A study that already knows who the 'trans' subjects are, and who the non-trans subjects are, is a very good clue that they WANT to pick out something different in trans brains.

In a non-biased study, the subjects would not be previously divided into trans, and non trans, groups.

In studies of male and female brains, we again read about certain 'tendencies' they have. But the main difference is size and weight of the brains. But one cannot identify every male brain as larger than every woman's, either. Some women have larger brains than some men. It is only a 'general rule of thumb'. A 'tendency', more prominent than other 'tendencies' are between them.

Brain features do not show a third gender, because there is no third gender. Even the actual two genders cannot be defined by their brains being distinct in any way, at all times.

Anyway, have a good night, it's past my bedtime.

a reply to: turbonium1

In other words you know better than the scientists.

Good night.

a reply to: turbonium1

So what about all those gay dogs and other animals out there that don't give a rats arse as to which orifice they hit?

Homosexuality and Transsexualism are not really synonymous, one being an attraction to the same sex and the other a body dysmorphic disorder really.

Far as i can determine we are the only animals on the planet that get the notion to cut off our junk and replace it with others because of insecurity and/or identity issues.

originally posted by: turbonium1
What identifies yourself as being an opposite gender, unknown to you, but you seem to know it's your gender, anyway. Yet, you cannot identify yourself as being of the gender you actually are?

i agree. Men who 'identify' as women can't possibly fathom the lived experience of a natal woman. They co-opt superficial things like women's clothing, makeup and hairstyles. They may ingest cross-sex hormones to grow breasts and have their penis inverted into a body cavity (which they have to work diligently to keep from closing up like the wound that it is.) That is not a woman's experience. They can't identify with menstruation, ovulation, pregnancy, and a slew of other concerns specific to natal women. Their appropriation of womanhood is offensive to me as a woman because they don't have a frigging clue what womanhood actually involves. They just want certain aspects, mostly superficial, and claim that's womanhood. Well bull#.

a reply to: andy06shake

Is making a baby the sum total of human experience?

Nope.


I agree that people should do what makes them happy, as long as they aren't harming anyone.

a reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

The reality is that in our day-to-day existence, you don't go around testing DNA and Chromosomes to take people as they are. Also, as pointed out numerous times, there is occasional variations in what is claimed to be absolute (intersex, XY females, XX males, etc.)

The statement that transgenderism is not "natural" is a judgement and an opinion that is not borne out by the science.

Again, this is an opinion and belief, not fact.

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's our biological imperative, that's a given.

Fact is children make the world seem shiny again and bring a measure of hope to an otherwise bleak existence, it's just how humanity is wired, or at least the majority of such.

Think we both agree that doing what makes you happy should be the rule of the day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gryphon66

It's our biological imperative, that's a given.

Fact is children make the world seem shiny again and bring a measure of hope to an otherwise bleak existence, it's just how humanity is wired, or at least the majority of such.

Think we both agree that doing what makes you happy should be the rule of the day.

It's our biological imperative? LOL. I'd argue that pursuing sexual interaction is ...

I don't disagree per se with your opinion about children, although, that viewpoint is hardly universal.

We do both agree on the important issues.

a reply to: new_here

With all respect, you can't possibly fathom lived experience of a transgendered person, you're claiming that your rights to identity are superior to their rights based on biology, anatomy, etc.

Gender is defined culturally and socially. You're speaking of anatomical sex characteristics which is also not gender nor gender identity.

Their "appropriation of womanhood" is offensive to you? Fair enough. Many things offend me every day; do you have a right not to be offended?

You, however, have defined womanhood for yourself, and that's where your definition stops having meaning - at the boundaries of your own experience. You know what "womanhood" is for you, not for anyone else.

Your argument really only proves that individuals should be able to live their best life regardless of what YOU think about that as you cannot understand their experience.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I was trying to figure out how best to respond to that poster, but you have done it magnificently.

:

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well without babies there is no next generation, which is imperative to our survival as a race.

Sexual congress does indeed have a habit of producing such.

The important issue, seems to me anyway, is that it takes all sorts to make our world spin, so who i'm i to judge.

End of the day the world spins and us along with it.

a reply to: andy06shake

The world population is nearly 8 billion and growing every year; barring global/cosmic catastrophe our survival as a race is not threated by gender identity.

Cheers on your honest take on "live and let live."

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes it would indeed be threatened if there was no desire for babies.

Fact is we would have 70-100 years tops.

And 100 year olds make for poor slaves.