Further proof that the *Trans Agenda* is anything but "progressive"

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Boadicea
We also know that when left alone, 60 to 80% of these kids will "grow into" their sexuality and "gender".

I'd love to know where you got that stat, because I think it is way, way off.

More like 90-95+% will 'grow into' their sexuality.

"This may or may not be true for adults, but for children (before, during and immediately after puberty), it is again, pure nonsense."

No, it's not nonsense.

Actually, generally speaking, yes, it is.

Yes, it must be kept in perspective.

Exactly. It is a very small percentage (I believe much smaller than you suggest above) that even end up gay, much less trans - if they are left to mature normally without drugs or being subjected to radical LGBTQabcxyz propaganda.

Yes, it applies to a relative small percentage of those who question their gender. But it cannot be denied. There are many such testimonials of this exact personal experience.

Gay, sure, but trans? Just no. There is zero room, in reality, for any rational arguments in favor of trans being anything other than a disorder.

Males are XY. Females are YY.

People born with anything other than XY or YY simply suffer from some genetic/birth defect.

And no, I am not saying they are bad people or anything like that, I feel for them, but truth is truth.

Those abnormal birth defects are no longer to be spoken of as "abnormal" , hence the reclassification of gender dysphoria from psychological abnormality , to biological phenomenon

also Hemaphrodite was changed to Intersex , because of the negative social stigma suffered by the patient !

So because of social stigma and negative impact on the persons life they have changed or removed specific parts of the language surrounding , sex related birth defects and abnormalities !

Now you dont call a disabled person Abnormal , you say they are disabled
but they are disabled because of their abnormalities or birth defects but its not politically correct to deem someone abnormal.

I think peoples feelings and subjective states of consciousness are getting in the way of biological facts.

Yes it is a dangerous area because you can really cause some damage to people who suffer these ailments


As I have said in another thread, say theoretically we do determine down the line in the future
that homosexuality , transgenderism are related to a genetic birth defect or psychological abnormality during fetal development.
Are we then to call everyone who is gay or transgender "abnormal"
No because that would create a lot of social stigma and would hurt peoples feelings and could cause a lot of trouble

but it would still be a biological fact despite what peoples feelings are on the subject

How are we to navigate "identity politics , and biology" when we are struggling to be civil about it when people react so emotionally to normal facts .

How would you react if you were told that because of a genetic defect or an abnormality during your fetal development
your sexual preference is the result of this abnormality and its not a choice or anything like that
but the result of biological abnormality .
People wouldnt be happy and would probably really struggle to come to terms with the implications

Only because , it is considered abnormal as in , not how nature intended our species to beget offspring and continue the process of passing on genetic information.

Yes it happens in nature, frogs who can change their sex, but only to propagate the species when no partners are available
in humans it doesnt work !

We cant change your sex organs and have a viable offspring with your new genitals (yet)

yes this subject is taboo , its also considered fragile , and dangerous because of the implications of public backlash if you speak about it

Many biology scientists have faced backlash from social activism groups for publishing journals which seek to understand the phenomenon and only published facts .
Not personal attacks but simple biological facts

I guess we all have to treat lightly and do so with compassion for our fellow man or woman !
or whatever they feel they are or want to be!

a reply to: sapien82

Even more, imagine if we were to find out that it was genetic abnormality that causes it? What then?

How many genetic abnormalities do we deem not worthy of life and push women to abort?

Why might some genetic abnormalities be deemed more worthy of life than others?

Is that a path we want to walk down, but aren't we already walking down it? I'd tell you to ask someone with Down's, but in some countries you can barely find them because they've nearly been aborted out of existence.

a reply to: ketsuko

this is it Ketsuko

its a matter of language

we call them abnormal because science dictates the language , but that language is then superseded by poltical and social language and then it enters into chaos! because you can be locked up for stating such

it could be considered "transphobia" in certain places to openly state that it is a biological abnormality
because people fail to understand the language and think only of offense

no one wants to be considered "abnormal"

but are people just going to have to admit that is the facts !

Yes you are considered medically / biologically abnormal , but that should not define who you are as a conscious human being!
that label shouldnt force you to think or feel differently , its just a descriptive term we use to explain what is happening.
Yes you are unfortunate to be born with a disability or an abnormality
but there are others far worse than you , born without senses, or limbs

the biggest stumbling block I have over this , is with Identity , you could probably ask every human on earth if they know who they are , and they would probably answer they dont know if they are being honest !
I feel that it has a lot to do with Ego !

I just hope that whatever the answers are we dont get worse as we progress

a reply to: sapien82

And that's the problem with modern intersectionality on many levels -- people start defining themselves based on superficial things like sex, skin color, etc., instead of looking past that to the deeper more important things about themselves like who they actually are in terms of personality, tastes, interests, etc. It's those deeper characteristics and one's character that really tell you who you are.

But we have a full society of people who've never stretched themselves to those limits, never discovered or bothered to figure that out. Instead, they're busy trying to cram themselves into neat little boxes that are mainly superficial and they wonder why they're never happy.

originally posted by: sapien82
Those abnormal birth defects are no longer to be spoken of as "abnormal" ,

I'm fairly certain I never said 'abnormal', so not sure why you felt compelled to make that point.

hence the reclassification of gender dysphoria from psychological abnormality , to biological phenomenon(

I don't play word games. It is a birth defect. Period. Anyone who would blame the victim of a birth defect for said defect is irrational.

also Hemaphrodite was changed to Intersex , because of the negative social stigma suffered by the patient !

I don't play word games. But I was unaware of any 'negative social stigma' attached to the word. That said, a 'negative social stigma' is imposed by society, so I also fail to see how the new term will fix the problem - society will simply assign the same 'negative social stigma' to the new word of the day.

Which is one reason why I don't play word games - especially PC word games.

So because of social stigma and negative impact on the persons life they have changed or removed specific parts of the language surrounding , sex related birth defects and abnormalities !

What is with the exclamation points? Do you think it helps your argument? Hint: it doesn't.

Now you dont call a disabled person Abnormal , you say they are disabled

I don't think I've ever heard a disabled person referred to as 'abnormal'.

but they are disabled because of their abnormalities or birth defects but its not politically correct to deem someone abnormal.

There is nothing politically incorrect about the term 'birth defect' - if you claim there is, I laugh in your face.

I think peoples feelings and subjective states of consciousness are getting in the way of biological facts.

Yes it is a dangerous area because you can really cause some damage to people who suffer these ailments

I have no intention of ever causing anyone any harm whatsoever due to their being the victim of a birth defect.

On the other hand, I have no intention of ever rejecting reality, or pretending reality is anything other than what it is, because someone's feeling might get hurt because of it, and I make no apologies for that.

If someone's feelings get hurt by simply talking about reality, that is their problem, and they should try to find help to determine why they are having an unreasonable/irrational response to reality, and resolve the issue.

As I have said in another thread, say theoretically we do determine down the line in the future
that homosexuality , transgenderism are related to a genetic birth defect or psychological abnormality during fetal development.

Unlikely. It is almost certainly a hormonal/chemical imbalance/problem caused by our polluted and dominantly 'fake' food supply.

Are we then to call everyone who is gay or transgender "abnormal"

Again, I fail to see why you keep harping on the word 'abnormal', since I never used it.

How are we to navigate "identity politics , and biology" when we are struggling to be civil about it when people react so emotionally to normal facts .

I don't engage in PC games, so do not recognize 'identity' politics as a legitimate topic worthy of discussion, only derision.

...snipping everything discussing 'abnormal' because it is irrelevant.

I guess we all have to treat lightly and do so with compassion for our fellow man or woman !
or whatever they feel they are or want to be!

No thanks!

I'll just continue as I have always done - treat people with dignity and respect unless/until they make it clear they don't deserve it.

I won't call a man a woman or her just because they want me to, and vice versa.

I call a man who wants to be a woman - or has 'transitioned' - as a trans-man, not to insult them, but because they are still a man, regardless of their personal whims or desires.

a reply to: tanstaafl

It's a scientific fact -- they are birth abnormalities. That's all that was said. You can also say that when someone has a sexual orientation that is less than 5% of the population like homosexuality that they are deviation from the norm -- statistically speaking they are and that's the proper term for it. Of course, emotionally, what people hear is deviant which they do not like and it gets in the way of discussion.

But it is the correct term just like if there were to be a truly genetic reason for homosexuality and/or trasngenderism (I don't think there actually is honestly), they would be genetic abnormalities. Human beings, like all sexually reproducing species, are not normally designed that way. There is no sound biological basis for such a thing to occur.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I was just replying to you mate I'm not saying you said that it was "abnormal" but the science that describes these issues does
I was compelled to make it because Identity politics is now having an impact on objective science
I was bringing it up as a part of the discussion around the subject

I am not attacking you personally , or directing my response specifically to you but to the subject we are discussing
(which is funny because anytime you do discuss this subject someone always feels personally attacked)

the reason gender dysphoria was changed in definition by WHO from psychological abnormality
to biological phenomenon was the negative social stigma that surrounds people who suffer this condition.

Gender dysphoria or homosexuality will not be linked to hormonal imbalance in foods
because how do we account for occurrence of transgender or gender dysphoria in human populations before mass produced food industry from agriculture there were no growth hormones to speak of.

Just because you don't recognise something as real doesn't make it any less real for anyone else who experiences it , personal incredulity is your problem not everyone else's which seems to be the case. At present we just dont know what gender dysphoria is , but if it is a birth defect then you'd have to adhere to the reality that it exists and isnt just personal fantasy !

So if someone you spoke to at a party asked you to address them as he or she , you'd go with what you see and not what they ask of you ?
do you realise it maybe insulting them if you dont call them what they would prefer to be called ?

Like I told you my name was paul and you called me dave all the time instead of paul as a I prefer . that's a dick move !


exclamation points, a bad habit , not sure where I picked it up from.

a reply to: ketsuko

accept in some animals where a sex partner is not available and so adopts the process of Parthenogenesis
and reproduces asexually .

a reply to: sapien82

Those animals are not mammals though. We're talking reptiles and fish. Lots of difference biologically. And parthenogenesis is different than same sex pairing although some animals still need to go through the motions to trigger the event.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tanstaafl

It's a scientific fact -- they are birth abnormalities. That's all that was said.

Maybe, but I fail to see any difference worth discussing. Birth defect, birth abnormality, same same.

Sapien82's implied that I had used that word with respect to describing someone in casual conversation, and made a big deal about it not being a good word to use.

I in fact did not use that word, and was simply making that clear.

You can also say that when someone has a sexual orientation that is less than 5% of the population like homosexuality that they are deviation from the norm -- statistically speaking they are and that's the proper term for it. Of course, emotionally, what people hear is deviant which they do not like and it gets in the way of discussion.

I agree, but that is irrelevant to what was being discussed.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: tanstaafl

I was just replying to you mate I'm not saying you said that it was "abnormal" but the science that describes these issues does

I read your reply as if you were supportive of all of the PC crap. My apologies if I read it wrong, but if I did, you should take more time in making your points, because that is what it sounds like to me.

Just because you don't recognise something as real doesn't make it any less real for anyone else who experiences it ,

No idea what you mean.

If someone believes that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, and it is 'real' to them, that doiesn't make it real in subjective terms.

personal incredulity is your problem not everyone else's which seems to be the case.

No idea what you mean by this either.

At present we just dont know what gender dysphoria is , but if it is a birth defect then you'd have to adhere to the reality that it exists and isnt just personal fantasy !

Of course, I would agree that they are suffering from a birth defect that causes them to believe they are something they aren't.

For actual hermaphrodites, who are born with full/complete sets of sexual organs - that is another matter entirely, and I honestly don't know enough about the condition to speak intelligently. For example - do there really exist people who can both father a child, as well as get pregnant and carry a child to term? If so, I might actually be a little envious of such a person...

So if someone you spoke to at a party asked you to address them as he or she , you'd go with what you see and not what they ask of you ?

If an obvious man asked me to address him as her or she, I would refuse.

do you realise it maybe insulting them if you dont call them what they would prefer to be called ?

I would explain to them my view of things, and tell them that if they wanted to speak with me, they would have to accept that I will not indulge them in their fantasies.

The ball would then be in their court.

Like I told you my name was paul and you called me dave all the time instead of paul as a I prefer . that's a dick move !

False analogy. Those are both male names, and I would only question you about it if you presented obviously as female.

I will only end with, my intention would never be to cause harm, I simply cannot/will not pretend that a man is a woman (or vice versa) because that man wants me to.

originally posted by: sapien82

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Boadicea
We also know that when left alone, 60 to 80% of these kids will "grow into" their sexuality and "gender".

I'd love to know where you got that stat, because I think it is way, way off.

More like 90-95+% will 'grow into' their sexuality.

"This may or may not be true for adults, but for children (before, during and immediately after puberty), it is again, pure nonsense."

No, it's not nonsense.

Actually, generally speaking, yes, it is.

Yes, it must be kept in perspective.

Exactly. It is a very small percentage (I believe much smaller than you suggest above) that even end up gay, much less trans - if they are left to mature normally without drugs or being subjected to radical LGBTQabcxyz propaganda.

Yes, it applies to a relative small percentage of those who question their gender. But it cannot be denied. There are many such testimonials of this exact personal experience.

Gay, sure, but trans? Just no. There is zero room, in reality, for any rational arguments in favor of trans being anything other than a disorder.

Males are XY. Females are YY.

People born with anything other than XY or YY simply suffer from some genetic/birth defect.

And no, I am not saying they are bad people or anything like that, I feel for them, but truth is truth.

Those abnormal birth defects are no longer to be spoken of as "abnormal" , hence the reclassification of gender dysphoria from psychological abnormality , to biological phenomenon

also Hemaphrodite was changed to Intersex , because of the negative social stigma suffered by the patient !

So because of social stigma and negative impact on the persons life they have changed or removed specific parts of the language surrounding , sex related birth defects and abnormalities !

Now you dont call a disabled person Abnormal , you say they are disabled
but they are disabled because of their abnormalities or birth defects but its not politically correct to deem someone abnormal.

I think peoples feelings and subjective states of consciousness are getting in the way of biological facts.

Yes it is a dangerous area because you can really cause some damage to people who suffer these ailments


As I have said in another thread, say theoretically we do determine down the line in the future
that homosexuality , transgenderism are related to a genetic birth defect or psychological abnormality during fetal development.
Are we then to call everyone who is gay or transgender "abnormal"
No because that would create a lot of social stigma and would hurt peoples feelings and could cause a lot of trouble

but it would still be a biological fact despite what peoples feelings are on the subject

How are we to navigate "identity politics , and biology" when we are struggling to be civil about it when people react so emotionally to normal facts .

How would you react if you were told that because of a genetic defect or an abnormality during your fetal development
your sexual preference is the result of this abnormality and its not a choice or anything like that
but the result of biological abnormality .
People wouldnt be happy and would probably really struggle to come to terms with the implications

Only because , it is considered abnormal as in , not how nature intended our species to beget offspring and continue the process of passing on genetic information.

Yes it happens in nature, frogs who can change their sex, but only to propagate the species when no partners are available
in humans it doesnt work !

We cant change your sex organs and have a viable offspring with your new genitals (yet)

yes this subject is taboo , its also considered fragile , and dangerous because of the implications of public backlash if you speak about it

Many biology scientists have faced backlash from social activism groups for publishing journals which seek to understand the phenomenon and only published facts .
Not personal attacks but simple biological facts

I guess we all have to treat lightly and do so with compassion for our fellow man or woman !
or whatever they feel they are or want to be!

That's like saying "say in the future we find out transracialism is a birth defect blah blah".

You're kidding, right?

Bisexuality and homosexuality are in no way related to "trans" whatever.

Transgenderism(-sexualism?) makes about as much sense as transracialism.

There was also this story a few years back that Iran decided to "cheat" and send some dudes to play in its national football team.

Throwback: When Iran tried to play men in their women’s national team

Iran have achieved a lot as a footballing nation, and they produce some very talented male players on a regular basis. The same cannot be said about their women’s team however.

...Just take a trip down memory lane to a 2015 article by The Telegraph, wherein it is clear that as much as eight men were actually a part of a ‘women’s team’ that Iran were sending out.

The contention was that a sex change operation was being undergone by the ‘male’ players, but as of that particular moment, no such operation had taken place.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, a bastion of progressiveness and freedom!

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

the transgender issue specifically gender dysphoria not the autogenyphiles could very well be a sex related birth defect
as with bi sexuality or homosexuality

trans racialism makes no sense as there is no biological basis for race

a reply to: AnakinWayneII


"Clerics do, however accept the idea that a person may be trapped in a body of the wrong sex. So homosexuals can be pushed into having gender reassignment surgery - and to avoid it many flee the country."



You go force Don Lemon to turning into more of a woman than he already is and see how that works out for you.

Can't wait to see Ms. Cooper either.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: AnakinWayneII

the transgender issue specifically gender dysphoria not the autogenyphiles could very well be a sex related birth defect
as with bi sexuality or homosexuality

trans racialism makes no sense as there is no biological basis for race

"Gender dysphoria" if it is even a thing, is caused more by the environment and society rather than actually having any basis in genetics.

We cannot equate it to sexuality.

Your comment about "transracialism" is bizarre. I used the term to underline the absurdity of "transsexualism".

Saying that there is "no biological basis for race" is a little shaky.

Now, not that I am disagreeing with you, but there are slight differences amongst groups within the human species. Some groups process sodium differently for instance (e.g. blood pressure issues), whilst there are some genetic nuances which produce different nose shapes for example. Sure, these are all small differences, but differences nonetheless.

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

Not according to the scientific community , its classed as a biological phenomenon with contributions from Environment society and they also believe some genes can play a role but there isnt enough data on it just now to make a clear picture

as I said there is no biological basis for race !

there are phenotypical differences from geographic region to region
based on adaptations to the environment but there is no biological basis for race
just homo sapiens sapiens

a reply to: AnakinWayneII

also when we say something is caused by the environment then it is likely that it is also having an affect on your genetic make up
as life will adapt to the environment hence why we see so much phenotype variation in humans across the globe

our skin is the perfect example of this