Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nodle

The too many genders thread/discussion

Recommended Posts

Well since numerous people in this thread seem to be against transgender acceptance perhaps it's a good idea to straighten out any misconceptions.

 

Edit: I noticed it while writing it :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well since numerous people in this thread seem to be against transgender acceptance perhaps it's a good idea to straighten out any misconceptions.

 

There's a big difference between acceptance and understanding the real damages it can cause if taken too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well since numerous people in this thread seem to be against transgender acceptance perhaps it's a good idea to straighten out any misconceptions.

 

Tolerance and acceptance are a bit different. I still don't accept men wearing earrings and you want to spring this shit on me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a big difference between acceptance and understanding the real damages it can cause if taken too far.

 

I doubt you'll see an epidemic of doctors handing out E like lolipops. I had a doctor tell me he wouldn't prescribe estrogen even if I stopped testosterone for the rest of my life. The guy was an endocrinologist and knew that's it unhealthy to have no hormones. In fact, it took three tries for people to stop offering T and start offering E, and I have a hormone disorder for God's sake.

 

Also that article is retarded. There's plenty of research indicating that cross sex HRT is perfectly healthy. It is somewhat 'harder' on the body if you also have to take hormone blockers, but it isn't too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tolerance and acceptance are a bit different. I still don't accept men wearing earrings and you want to spring this shit on me?

My comment about acceptance wasn't really aimed at you: The impression I have on your stance about this is on the tolerance end of things.

 

There's a big difference between acceptance and understanding the real damages it can cause if taken too far.

In my country (Denmark) essentially nothing is done until the person in question is of legal age (18) which makes the case about starting estrogen treatment at age 14 sort of non-existant in my country, atleast legally. It has been done by some few vigilante doctors. But seriously Merkabo, in that blaze link I read some of the comments to the article and several times people come with a personal anecdote about how they were tomboyish or something in their youth and how they afterwards became "normal". The trans community represent an incredibly small part of the overall population so that removes most of my confidence in such claims. For those people whose lives work how neat. But what about the rest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God doesn't exist and if by accident he does exist, he can suck my balls.

As Richard Dawkins said:

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."

Dawkins isn't the one you should be quoting. He has insufficient knowledge of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics and is a biologist, not a biblical scholar or a theologian. Other than not comprehending anthropomorphisms (since the Christian God, by his very nature, can not have emotions. I can explain why and how that does not contradict the Scripture, but you are probably not interested.), he claims Paul the apostle created Christianity to which he provides no proof.

From his "God hypothesis" section it is obvious he has no understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine, nor is aware of God's transcendence and is therefore often defeating strawmen.

 

And there is no "God of the OT" since God of the OT & NT is the same -- as all of the Christian Churches teach.

 

Plus, you need to keep in mind the social, historical and cultural context of the time certain part of the Bible is written. Hence there are things such as Exodus 17:11 "As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning." or the Battle of Jericho (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jericho) which did not happen, but the one writing it down wanted to give glory to God and to let those who read it know how He helped them and He is to be thanked for that as opposed to writing down an actual event (now, whether He helped them or not is another question). To determine that, disciplines such as history of religion, religious archeology, sociology, philosophy, psychology, ethnology, anthropology, theology, hermeneutics (...) exist. Dawkins is an expert in neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dawkins isn't the one you should be quoting. He has insufficient knowledge of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics and is a biologist, not a biblical scholar or a theologian. Other than not comprehending anthropomorphisms (since the Christian God, by his very nature, can not have emotions. I can explain why and how that does not contradict the Scripture, but you are probably not interested.), he claims Paul the apostle created Christianity to which he provides no proof.

From his "God hypothesis" section it is obvious he has no understanding of the Trinitarian doctrine, nor is aware of God's transcendence and is therefore often defeating strawmen.

.

 

From an agnostic standpoint it seems rather difficult to acknowledge God as being incapable of having emotions when the very existance of god is in question. The argument that we humans do not know enough is all well and good but it goes both ways. Since we do not know perhaps one should withhold judgment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SSDjXB7.jpg

 

To be honest, getting shot with a rubber bullet in the vagina would be pretty painful also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which bathroom should pic related use?

 

transexual.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The one where gas comes out of the shower heads

 

Death to Hons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you saw there was a spoiler

 

I did, but I did not approve of it's contents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he called you a nazi.

 

I just genuinely thought Spank would appreciate finding a freaky-deaky in his bathroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol gotta love how SJWs and feminazis can high jack words and change their meaning. Gender and sex are words for the exact same thing.

 

In Danish there is only one word, Køn.

 

In Swedish we actually have separate words: "Kön" (Sex) and "Genus" (Gender). The distinction has existed for at least 50 years.

 

Personally, I've never met anyone scolding me for calling them by the wrong gender. My general stance is that if someone asks you to use a certain pronoun, you do so out of respect, just like you respect it when someone asks you to not use a certain nickname on them.

 

The first picture looks ridiculous and silly, but in essence it is correct. Sex is determined by your physical body, sexual orientation by prenatal hormones (at least this is the leading scientific theory), and the source of one's gender identity is theorized to be either biological or psychological - but in either way irreversible. A person can be any combination of these things. The "thousands of genders" thing sounds dumb though, I guess the value comes from the product of all combinations of traits, but the labels we have are good enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Swedish we actually have separate words: "Kön" (Sex) and "Genus" (Gender). The distinction has existed for at least 50 years.

You sure you got that right?

 

Not the Genus used for grammatical system of classes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sure you got that right?

 

Not the Genus used for grammatical system of classes?

 

It is used in both meanings. You can check out the Swedish Wikipedia page on the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Swedish we actually have separate words: "Kön" (Sex) and "Genus" (Gender). The distinction has existed for at least 50 years.

 

Personally, I've never met anyone scolding me for calling them by the wrong gender. My general stance is that if someone asks you to use a certain pronoun, you do so out of respect, just like you respect it when someone asks you to not use a certain nickname on them.

 

The first picture looks ridiculous and silly, but in essence it is correct. Sex is determined by your physical body, sexual orientation by prenatal hormones (at least this is the leading scientific theory), and the source of one's gender identity is theorized to be either biological or psychological - but in either way irreversible. A person can be any combination of these things. The "thousands of genders" thing sounds dumb though, I guess the value comes from the product of all combinations of traits, but the labels we have are good enough.

Calling someone by their biological sex is not the same as using a nickname. The first one is cold logic, the second one is bullying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...