Gender roles and the effects of shifting these roles on modern day society.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: onequestion
I don't understand why cultural gender roles are part of the same conversation as transgender?

Because it is being forced as a new normal. Culturally we are made to accept them as they are. I am okay with this but genetically and scientifically it is not normal.

We are all mutations from the first human.

Gender variances are normal. They've just been shoved out of "polite society".



What is happening today is normal. Locking normal variations in a closet so as not to disturb certain people is archaic.

We are progressing.

Yes but in the same breath, you cannot simply force others to accept it either because that would be an infringement on their rights as well.

My life lesson "Not everyone is going to like you all the time, always." I say it often. Forcing people to accept something is not the way to go about gaining acceptance. It's a sure fire way to affirm their feelings. Being nice and having genuine discussions about it can ease the matters of feelings but it will not change thousands of years of genetic evolution. People reject change when they have a way of life that has shown to sustain life.

In philosophy, the purpose of life is to create and sustain life. As humans, we procreate naturally with the opposite sex so biologically people are not going to see separate genders. You can identify all you want with whatever gender you want as long as you are not hurting anyone physically but you also cannot force people to accept your way of thinking either.

I assure you I see both sides on this topic. I have a couple of friends going through transitions themselves that I ask constant questions to. They are very informative and helpful and also respect my opinions on the matter as well as agree with me about the effects of depression within the trans community. That doesn't make me a mean person for pointing out facts and scientific research, it just means that there is an issue that needs resolving.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Annee

As above so below

They are natural laws governing our time space that we do not necessarily have control over to the degree we believe we do.

Belief being the operative word.

It's almost like a new religion is forming.

Is a microscope included in those natural laws?

The only thing I see changing is we are finally accepting natural. Instead of denying it.

a reply to: Annee

The microscope is a tool used to observe natural laws not create them

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Annee

The microscope is a tool used to observe natural laws not create them

Yes, its a tool. It's not part of nature.

In other words, man has evolved to create a tool to study what he can't see with the naked eye.

Man makes choices that other animals do not - - - because they have not evolved enough to know there are variations in species that are natural even if different.

a reply to: onequestion

To deny nurture plays a role would be equally ignorant

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: onequestion

To deny nurture plays a role would be equally ignorant

precisely

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Annee

The microscope is a tool used to observe natural laws not create them

The microscope has helped us understand things like diseases. With that understanding, we developed modern medicine to help us fight these diseases in order to live a lot longer than would be considered "natural".

We don't create natural laws, but we have used our brains (very natural brains, by the way) to develop ways to live longer and be happier. Nothing wrong with that. If a person with gender dysphoria can use modern medicine to live a happy life, what's wrong with that?

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

Yes but in the same breath, you cannot simply force others to accept it either because that would be an infringement on their rights as well.

Having the same rights as the majority is not infringement.

ICK factor does not qualify as a "special right" to deny a minority Equal Rights/Equal Treatment.

Not only can you force Equal Rights - - its necessary.

Women Right to Vote - Forced
Fair Housing - Forced
Civil Rights - Forced
Disability Act - Forced
Marriage Equality - Forced.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Annee

The microscope is a tool used to observe natural laws not create them

The microscope has helped us understand things like diseases. With that understanding, we developed modern medicine to help us fight these diseases in order to live a lot longer than would be considered "natural".

We don't create natural laws, but we have used our brains (very natural brains, by the way) to develop ways to live longer and be happier. Nothing wrong with that. If a person with gender dysphoria can use modern medicine to live a happy life, what's wrong with that?

Dictionary definition:

a disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, especially one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

Yes but in the same breath, you cannot simply force others to accept it either because that would be an infringement on their rights as well.

Having the same rights as the majority is not infringement.

ICK factor does not qualify as a "special right" to deny a minority Equal Rights/Equal Treatment.

Not only can you force Equal Rights - - its necessary.

Women Right to Vote - Forced
Fair Housing - Forced
Civil Rights - Forced
Disability Act - Forced
Marriage Equality - Forced.

Just because a law is passed does not automatically undo years of scientific evidence of gender roles.
That is just a morphed way of "Because I said so" that parents bark at children. Doesn't change the way they think, just how they act.

Gender equality - fourth wave style - is the new fun way - feel the shift.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
I have a total of 4 trans folks in my social group. ..., she (Blaire) isn't in my social group, just someone I find quite rational..like the 4 nobody trans people. she just has presence and eloquence in her videos.
..as far as being anti-feminist..many trans are given they arent trying to knock down the stereotypes and gender norms of women..they are trying to typically embrace them (m2f)

What prompted me to enter this thread was the notion that transgender folks were somehow diluting the perceived purity of traditional gender roles. Most people that transition are at least partially motivated because those gender roles associated with their natal sex don't fit or work for them. Most transgender people after transition fall within the customary binary and don't claim to be some third or intermediate whatever gender. Other gender variant, gender non-conforming or intermediate genders may fall under the transgender umbrella by definition but people who are transgender in the classic sense usually identify as men or women, not two-spirit genderqueer unicorns, etc. Yes, some may be non-binary. There are a lot of non-trans people that are non-binary too.

-- Why is it okay or necessary to conjecture about a person's history or their genital status? She states clearly she is trans and is obviously well beyond the point of transitioning.

Not sure if she is actually.

Not sure if she is actually what? A woman? That's certainly how she lives her life and how others would perceive her totally if they were unaware of her transgender status. How about you do her and all trans people a solid and take them at face value for who they are presenting themselves to be. Have a little respect.

--Why is genitals a topic of discussion when discussing trans?

...because thats what all this is about. If there is no consideration for genitals, then what is a trans?

Well, I'm sorry but if you think being trans is just about genitals, you really have no understanding of this at all.

-- Thinking or talking about a woman's genitals is pretty crass and reductive.
That, my friend, is what is called projection.

No, that's what's called being rude, invasive and reducing who a person is as a person down to what's between their legs and the "completeness" of their transition according to your high standards.

I find the genital discussion, when discussing trans people, part of the subject, not the full subject, but when discussing the person, and the discussion of the person is their activism in the trans community..its pretty relevant to discuss

Why? Out of your own prurient curiosity perhaps?

Does it somehow change the validity of what a person says, believes or does? Is a transgender woman like Blaire White completely invalidated as a person because she may have male bits that are absolutely none of your business unless you were planning to sleep with her?

How about you ask these 4 trans people supposedly in your social circle how they feel about someone asking about their privates? How about you ask how dehumanizing a question like this is. Since you seem to be living in or socializing in Transgender Grand Central Station, maybe you should check in with all the women you know too just to make sure they're assembled to your standards. If you think you are being some kind of transgender ally, you really aren't or could do much better. I'll let some other writers share their advice.

SOME WAYS TO BE A GOOD TRANS ALLY…

Tips for Allies of Transgender People

A Guide Toward Allyship

Here is a neat test
womens boxing. can a man, who decides he identifies as a woman on tuesday, be allowed to box a woman on wednesday without undergoing any medical procedures?
I tend to view that as the reality of the situation.
If a person has no desire to transition, then why label oneself as trans?

I think your "neat test" is a ridiculous proposition and your imaginary hypothetical a ludicrous characterization. I didn't say there were transgender people that didn't have a desire to transition, I said there are many that don't or can't due to a whole host of reasons. The issues resulting from having gender dysphoria vary in intensity between different individuals and for some, the social dysphoria exceeds the physical dysphoria. There is no one right way to be trans and no two trans persons are alike.

..surely you aren't being an absolute cancer in this discussion and suggesting anyone even is sort of saying this is relatable to praying the gay away..surely you aren't that much of a small minded progressive cultist that would flat out lie in order to fit a repugnant agenda of dismissal towards any suggestion of seeking help during confusion to sort out if transitioning is the best idea..surely not.

A cancerous small minded progressive cultist with a repugnant agenda? Wonder if I could get that on a bumper sticker? It has a nice ring to it.

Here's what you said:

...may be the result of some simple childhood issues with their mother/father and some therapy can in fact "cure" them. In saying that, there are a number of transsexuals who also aren't actual "wrong gendered" but just dealing with some mental issues..often they find out after they went through costly surgery that it was a mistake, they needed a therapist, not a surgeon.

Were you not implying 1) that transgender people need to be or can be cured and 2) that transgender people going the through the process of transition do not have "therapy"? The counseling and evaluation process is a part of every transgender person's journey and one of the primary goals is to weed out other mental health conditions and identify contraindications. People that lie or fake their way through this process are the ones that regret. You might also want to consider or read the linked article on the nature of regret.

Many successful surgeries allow for happier lifestyles no doubt. I would agree to even the vast majority, sure.
But suicide rates of post op trans is very high
Us National Library of Medicine

Oh gee look! It's that damn "Swedish Study" again and things being taken out of context. I've posted information about this already at least six if not a dozen times and will spare the bandwidth by not posting it again. Walt Heyer. Check. Google Dr. Paul McHugh because I don't think he's been dragged out in this conversation yet. On second thought, don't bother. Did you even watch the first two videos you posted?

I respect people, I dont have to understand people, I respect 2 pronoun sets..female and male,]...and I can be convinced to use female on pre-ops if they are making a fair attempt at least (also opposite way if its a earnest attempt..testosterone treatments, etc).

Did you really just say that? Wow! I won't say anything more but will just let who you are as a person shine through for all to see.

I have replies to other contributors and the OP. Unfortunately, I've been called out of the office for an on-site emergency and do not know when I'll be back.

This is getting to be a headache so I will say it one last time.... this is a discussion about the EFFECTS of gender roles on society not about your advocacy for the trans community. No one has said that Trans do not have rights. We are discussig the mass effects on EVERYONE not just trans people. So if you have further discussion you wish to have about just defending the trans community (for what reason I am not sure because I never insulted them or dissagreed with their rights) then please inbox me as this is a discussion about science and not sociological philosophy. Thank you.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Annee

The microscope is a tool used to observe natural laws not create them

The microscope has helped us understand things like diseases. With that understanding, we developed modern medicine to help us fight these diseases in order to live a lot longer than would be considered "natural".

We don't create natural laws, but we have used our brains (very natural brains, by the way) to develop ways to live longer and be happier. Nothing wrong with that. If a person with gender dysphoria can use modern medicine to live a happy life, what's wrong with that?

I've been fascinated by the "newish" science of brain scans for quite a while.

Seems we actually are who we are born. While the brain can expand and evolve - - it doesn't change the core of who we are born (unless damaged).

Are there gender differences in the brain? Yes, but we are always evolving as a species - - needs change. And I suspect the brain would reflect gender evolution if we had enough past years of data.

Today, procreation to survive is not #1 priority. I'd say the brain is going to reflect that change in time. Something else will become more prominent.

I'm a progressive who wants to see more growth intellectually, scientifically, etc - - to evolve the brain toward the importance of our habitat and space exploration.

The gender wars - - other then Equality - - is so far from my thinking its just not even registering.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad
This is getting to be a headache so I will say it one last time.... this is a discussion about the EFFECTS of gender roles on society not about your advocacy for the trans community.

YOU entered the transgender debate.

Maybe if you'd have acknowledge that you don't know it all - - and gave credit to someone who knows first hand more then you we would have gotten back on track sooner.

a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

You are ignoring the effect on subsequent generations.

When we first forced the women's right to vote, a lot of men threw a fit. They did not accept it. Over time, new generations of men were totally used to the idea of women voting, having grown up with it. Now, virtually everyone accepts the idea of women voting and there is no issue with it.

It will be the same with marriage equality. Many reject the idea now, but their great-great-grandchildren will think nothing of it because it is all they have ever known.

It takes time, but change that gives people more rights is usually accepted eventually.

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: SomeDumbBroad

Yes but in the same breath, you cannot simply force others to accept it either because that would be an infringement on their rights as well.

Having the same rights as the majority is not infringement.

ICK factor does not qualify as a "special right" to deny a minority Equal Rights/Equal Treatment.

Not only can you force Equal Rights - - its necessary.

Women Right to Vote - Forced
Fair Housing - Forced
Civil Rights - Forced
Disability Act - Forced
Marriage Equality - Forced.

Just because a law is passed does not automatically undo years of scientific evidence of gender roles.
That is just a morphed way of "Because I said so" that parents bark at children. Doesn't change the way they think, just how they act.

I don't care. We are humans. We can make decisions. We do not have to wait for nature to take its course.

If Equal Rights has to be forced, then it needs to be forced.

As it has in the past.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

When we first forced the women's right to vote, a lot of men threw a fit. They did not accept it. Over time, new generations of men were totally used to the idea of women voting, having grown up with it. Now, virtually everyone accepts the idea of women voting and there is no issue with it.

I remember the big fuss over Ms, Miss, Mrs.

Same thing. No one even thinks twice about it today.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kaylaluv

When we first forced the women's right to vote, a lot of men threw a fit. They did not accept it. Over time, new generations of men were totally used to the idea of women voting, having grown up with it. Now, virtually everyone accepts the idea of women voting and there is no issue with it.

I remember the big fuss over Ms, Miss, Mrs.

Same thing. No one even thinks twice about it today.

Actually in my original post I touched on the effects it has on modern day society.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SomeDumbBroad

You are ignoring the effect on subsequent generations.

When we first forced the women's right to vote, a lot of men threw a fit. They did not accept it. Over time, new generations of men were totally used to the idea of women voting, having grown up with it. Now, virtually everyone accepts the idea of women voting and there is no issue with it.

It will be the same with marriage equality. Many reject the idea now, but their great-great-grandchildren will think nothing of it because it is all they have ever known.

It takes time, but change that gives people more rights is usually accepted eventually.

I have not ignored it. I am speaking of the PRESENT effects which is what this thread is about.