As "Transgenderism" has been accepted, will you all also accept "transracialism"?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You got that from me correcting you about animal species that can change sex? You should work on your reading comprehension.

You interjected yourself into the conversation between myself and luthier about transgenderism in humans, so yes, your comment alluded to the fact that because some (very few) animals (mostly frogs as far as I can tell) can change sex (in very rare circumstances) as a result of being exposed to hormones from foreign sources (not hormones that their bodies produce naturally), that this somehow supports the theory of transgenderism in humans.

Whether or n ot that is what you intended, that is what you did.

"You equated the fact that some fish can change sex supports the argument that people can too."

Quote me where I said that.

It was implied in the context of what you were replying to.

"No, I claimed people cannot change sex."

You also claimed animals couldn't.

Yes, I did, because I'd never heard of it, but I also admit I never really researched it.

That said, it is apparently an extremely rare and extremely limited phenomena, limited to only a very few species, which is contrary to the words you used which suggests it is common.

So, show me a human, or a dog, or an elephant, or a zebra, or a gorilla, or a cat, or some other common mammal that is capable of changing sex from a fully functional (sexually speaking) adult male (or female) to a fully functional (sexually speaking) adult female (or male), or stfu.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You got that from me correcting you about animal species that can change sex? You should work on your reading comprehension.

You interjected yourself into the conversation between myself and luthier about transgenderism in humans, so yes, your comment alluded to the fact that because some (very few) animals (mostly frogs as far as I can tell) can change sex (in very rare circumstances) as a result of being exposed to hormones from foreign sources (not hormones that their bodies produce naturally), that this somehow supports the theory of transgenderism in humans.

Whether or not that is what you intended, that is what you did.

"You equated the fact that some fish can change sex supports the argument that people can too."

Quote me where I said that.

It was implied in the context of what you were replying to.

"No, I claimed people cannot change sex."

You also claimed animals couldn't.

Yes, I did, because I'd never heard of it, but I also admit I never really researched it.

That said, it is apparently an extremely rare and extremely limited phenomena, limited to only a very few species, which is contrary to the words you used which suggests it is common.

So, show me a human, or a dog, or an elephant, or a zebra, or a gorilla, or a cat, or some other common mammal that is capable of changing sex from a fully functional (sexually speaking) adult male (or female) to a fully functional (sexually speaking) adult female (or male), or stfu.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

You interjected yourself into the conversation between myself and luthier about transgenderism in humans...

To address a specific fallacy you sated about animals. It really couldn't be any clearer since I used the word 'animals'. Again work on your reading comprehension.

It was implied in the context of what you were replying to.

No, it wasn't. My implication was about animals, since, you know, I said 'animals'.

Yes, I did, because I'd never heard of it, but I also admit I never really researched it.

Which is why I corrected you on this point, but instead of saying, 'You're right', you try to back pedal and put words in my mouth.

That said, it is apparently an extremely rare and extremely limited phenomena, limited to only a very few species, which is contrary to the words you used which suggests it is common.

I said it was 'common'? Quote me.

So, show me a human, or a dog, or an elephant, or a zebra, or a gorilla, or a cat, or some other common mammal that is capable of changing sex from a fully functional (sexually speaking) adult male (or female) to a fully functional (sexually speaking) adult female (or male), or stfu.

Look at you making straw men. Have fun with that. Your time would be better served working on your reading comprehension skills.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
To address a specific fallacy you sated about animals.

And you did it very poorly, suggesting it was much more common than it actually is.

It really couldn't be any clearer since I used the word 'animals'. Again work on your reading comprehension.

I think you are the one who needs to work on that - you fail to comprehend the context of the comments you were replying to.

My implication was about animals, since, you know, I said 'animals'.

And the discussion was about human transgender theory, and the comment you interjected yourself into was a result of someone trying to claim that because his hen was develpo9ing spurs that proved that humans can change sex.

Which is why I corrected you on this point, but instead of saying, 'You're right', you try to back pedal and put words in my mouth.

No, you are simply refusing to admit that you interjected yourself into a discussion without comprehending the context of said discussion, but instead of saying, 'oh, right, I missed that because I didn't read the prior posts', you waste everyones time trying to prove you're right when you're wrong.

TI said it was 'common'? Quote me.

You said "Hormonally induced sex changes occur in certain species of animals quite regularly".

Quite regularly can easily be taken to mean it is 'common'.

Your time would be better served working on your reading comprehension skills.

Talking to yourself again... better watch that.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

And you did it very poorly, suggesting it was much more common than it actually is.

I did no such thing, you really need to understand how the English language functions.

And the discussion was about human transgender theory, and the comment you interjected yourself into was a result of someone trying to claim that because his hen was develpo9ing spurs that proved that humans can change sex.

And it directly addressed your false statement about animals. I personally don't care what you were discussing with someone else which is why I only quoted what I wanted to address.

No, you are simply refusing to admit that you interjected yourself into a discussion without comprehending the context of said discussion...

The context was you made a false statement and I corrected you.

You said "Hormonally induced sex changes occur in certain species of animals quite regularly".

Quite regularly can easily be taken to mean it is 'common'.

It could by someone who doesn't understand sentence structure. Is that you?

Talking to yourself again... better watch that.

Says the guy who doesn't even remember what he said, how to use/understand the quote feature or how sentence structure functions.

a reply to: tanstaafl


It's very simple. You don't understand reality.

Are eyeglasses natural?

The use of fire?

Electricity?

So for some reason you believe using genetic engineering and hormone treatment is unnatural. Here you are in cyberspace...you should be hunting and gathering..eating raw meat and making flint spears...be careful though that tech leads to more tech.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
you really need to understand how the English language functions.

Tsk tsk, still talking to yourself...

"Quite regularly can easily be taken to mean it is 'common'."

It could by someone who doesn't understand sentence structure. Is that you?

I am one who says that 'quite regularly' can also mean 'common'.

But, I understand sentence structure very well, so your false premise falls flat.

Says the guy who doesn't even remember what he said, how to use/understand the quote feature or how sentence structure functions.

Says the guy who doesn't understand how sentence structure functions, but always remembers what he said, and apparently is expert in the use/understand the quote feature.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

Tsk tsk, still talking to yourself...

Says the guy who's easily confused by basic language.

I am one who says that 'quite regularly' can also mean 'common'.

But, I understand sentence structure very well, so your false premise falls flat.

Let me break it down for you since you don't seem to understand. This is what I said:

'Hormonally induced sex changes occur in certain species of animals quite regularly...'

In the declarative compound sentence the 'certain species' part of the sentence is called an 'adjective clause', it helps define the context of the rest of the sentence, which, due to your extreme confusion, I will now restate in a much longer form to alleviate your challenges:

There are certain species of animals, such as eels, gobies, wrasses and clownfish, that, when environmental aspects influence their hormonal output, will change sex, this occurs quite regularly in these particular species.

S
ays the guy who doesn't understand how sentence structure functions, but always remembers what he said, and apparently is expert in the use/understand the quote feature.

*yawn*

Wanna remind everyone how you got sucked into this conversation? Was it because you thought I was saying something when I wasn't and then shifted the goal posts? Winner winner, sex changing chicken dinner.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
Just gauging the feeling here, but it would appear that the overall feeling amongst the public (in the Western World at least) is "live and let live" or "whatever makes you happy" or "as long as they're not harming me or pushing things down my throat" or - and this is a popular one - "WHO CARES".

Okay, so, let us say that in five years time, "transracialism" starts "trending" and being pushed in the media:

It's 2025 and NBC is doing an interview with a trans-Black man (a chap who was born ethnically Han Chinese and has made lots of effort to change himself physically). Sky News Australia does a news special on a trans-white dude (a chap who was born ethnically Japanese and has made lots of effort to physically make himself look "white European") and so on and so forth.

***Would your responses to this new "trend" of "transracialism" be the same as they are/were with "transgenderism" (whatever they are)?

(EDIT: Some may call Michael Jackson "transracial", even with the supposed alleged "lightbulb incident" and/or alleged Vitiligo condition.)

Thoughts

If you really were trying to gauge whether of not transgenderism is accepted or not, just read the transphobia threads on this forum and read the news where transgendered people are being murdered or suffer violence at the hands of those that 'REALLY CARE'.

Michael Jackson had a skin disease nothing more...the lightbulb over your head seems to be out at the moment.

The only place that the color of a person's skin should matter is during an investigation of a crime or at the hospital. The instance of investigation is for determining who the perpetrator is I stead of a person with a gun you should state the race white guy black girl etc. In the hospital race plays a card in the diagnosis different races can have different diagnosis depending on race.

Not my body, not my life, not my business.
In less than a decade parents will be able to chose traits of their kids before birth.
Imo every ADULT has the right to shape his body in the way he sees it.
The only worrying factor of transgenderism to me is when kids are getting brainwashed and confused. It's hard to judge the scope and scale of it because right is no different than left when it comes to propaganda.

originally posted by: luthier
It's very simple. You don't understand reality.

That is hilarious, coming from someone who believes that:

Are eyeglasses natural?

The use of fire?

Electricity?

Are relevant/legitimate comparisons to the suggestion that the use of artificial hormones that make men grow breasts is equivalent to a man turning into a woman.

So for some reason you believe using genetic engineering and hormone treatment is unnatural.

It is. It doesn't occur in nature, so it is, by definition, 'unnatural'.

I say that it is not only extremely unethical, it is a disaster in the making (see the movie 'I am Legend' for what I mean by that).

Here you are in cyberspace...you should be hunting and gathering..eating raw meat and making flint spears...be careful though that tech leads to more tech.

Again, confusing my opposition to unnatural, unethical and extremely dangerous genetic engineering of the human genome to some kind of blanket opposition to 'the discovery of fire' or ophthalmology, or now, the internet.

Silly boy.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: luthier
It's very simple. You don't understand reality.

That is hilarious, coming from someone who believes that:

Are eyeglasses natural?

The use of fire?

Electricity?

Are relevant/legitimate comparisons to the suggestion that the use of artificial hormones that make men grow breasts is equivalent to a man turning into a woman.

So for some reason you believe using genetic engineering and hormone treatment is unnatural.

It is. It doesn't occur in nature, so it is, by definition, 'unnatural'.

I say that it is not only extremely unethical, it is a disaster in the making (see the movie 'I am Legend' for what I mean by that).

Here you are in cyberspace...you should be hunting and gathering..eating raw meat and making flint spears...be careful though that tech leads to more tech.

Again, confusing my opposition to unnatural, unethical and extremely dangerous genetic engineering of the human genome to some kind of blanket opposition to 'the discovery of fire' or ophthalmology, or now, the internet.

Silly boy.

People are always scared of things they don't understand.

Apparently you are also uniformed as to how our genes change...

That biology also changes to adapt to new environments.....

Notice how I pointed this out. It's totally over your head.


Lol...good luck with the future. Seeing as they can literally change sex through genetic engineering (a tool).

People were surely scared of those who used fire as well.

And again who cares what your personal views are and why should they matter and be something to control society.

Perhaps you should explore the topic of the social contract so you don't confuse the center of the world as where you are standing at any time.

a reply to: tanstaafl


Says the guy who thought I was talking about people when I said 'animals'.

Too funny.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: luthier
It's very simple. You don't understand reality.

That is hilarious, coming from someone who believes that:

Are eyeglasses natural?

The use of fire?

Electricity?

Are relevant/legitimate comparisons to the suggestion that the use of artificial hormones that make men grow breasts is equivalent to a man turning into a woman.

So for some reason you believe using genetic engineering and hormone treatment is unnatural.

It is. It doesn't occur in nature, so it is, by definition, 'unnatural'.

I say that it is not only extremely unethical, it is a disaster in the making (see the movie 'I am Legend' for what I mean by that).

Here you are in cyberspace...you should be hunting and gathering..eating raw meat and making flint spears...be careful though that tech leads to more tech.

Again, confusing my opposition to unnatural, unethical and extremely dangerous genetic engineering of the human genome to some kind of blanket opposition to 'the discovery of fire' or ophthalmology, or now, the internet.

Silly boy.

People are always scared of things they don't understand.

Apparently you are also uniformed as to how our genes change...

That biology also changes to adapt to new environments.....

Notice how I pointed this out. It's totally over your head.


Lol...good luck with the future. Seeing as they can literally change sex through genetic engineering (a tool).

People were surely scared of those who used fire as well.

And again who cares what your personal views are and why should they matter and be something to control society.

Perhaps you should explore the topic of the social contract so you don't confuse the center of the world as where you are standing at any time.

I wouldn't necessarily put a "sex change" in the category of human engineering.


A natural male, perfectly physically healthy, is mutilated (if he decides to change himself physically - if that's even the case (urethra anyone me?)) and is not being improved (on the contrary). The likelihood of body fat increases increases by a huge factor; muscle tone and structure and mass take a greater nosedive than a Malaysian airliner flying over the Bermuda Triangle; bones become more brittle and prone to fractures etc etc.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Well no, because Race is not a thing. Culture and ethnicity (same thing) is however.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: tanstaafl


Says the guy who thought I was talking about people when I said 'animals'.

Too funny.

But, really Aug, we are part of the animal kingdom after all.

originally posted by: KiwiNite
Not my body, not my life, not my business.
In less than a decade parents will be able to chose traits of their kids before birth.
Imo every ADULT has the right to shape his body in the way he sees it.
The only worrying factor of transgenderism to me is when kids are getting brainwashed and confused. It's hard to judge the scope and scale of it because right is no different than left when it comes to propaganda.

And the same will happen with parents deciding the traits of their kids before birth...whose business it that?

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

The younger generation really doesn't care about the ideals of baby boomers.

They will care when the nwo boots are on their necks and they can't do anything without a licence. I'll be dead by then :-)

Cheers - Dave