Billy Dee Williams and the Concept of "Gender-Fluidity"

a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol yeah sure. That’s what we call a false equivalency.

a reply to: Grambler

But you ARE forced to adhere to their wishes. You must use their preferred pronouns and names or face the wrath - in some places fines and actual jail time.

a reply to: Astrocyte


I think it just boils down to cultural norms versus abnormality expressing itself.

One day what’s not normal now will become normal.

Evolution or just change is always occurring

For better or worse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: Astrocyte

Most of us live in our God given physical bodies just fine. The rest of us who feel as if they are not in the right body suffer from an unfortunate mental illness.

So if society decides that your politics or your religion is an unfortunate mental illness... You're okay with that?

Similarly, has society ever demanded that others share in your particular political or religious ethos? In my albeit short life I've yet to see society demand "All must view Jesus as the Son of God" or "Every American MUST agree that abortion is wrong." Yet, where the gender confusion issue is concerned, there are those presently demanding that "If person XYZ says they are a female you must not only refer to them as 'she,' you must also accept and believe, yourself, that they are female. Anything less than that is bigotry."

originally posted by: PokeyJoe
a reply to: Gryphon66

Lol yeah sure. That’s what we call a false equivalency.

Well, then, that’s where you and the mouse (or whatever) in your pocket would be dead wrong.

The idea that the state will decide by decree what “mental illness” is and isn’t could be and has been extended to religion, politics, sexual orientation and even biological sex in the past so, no, it wouldn’t stop with your shopping list for which particular identities you don’t agree with and which are therefore “mentally ill.”



.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Edumakated

Are you only attracted to one “type” of woman?

There are strong women, and patient women, and pushy women and pushover women and assertive women and retiring women ... do you only like women with one hair color or style? How about favorite body features, is it the exact same for every woman you’ve ever been attracted to?

Different strokes.

Hardly and apples to apples comparison. I am attracted to all kinds of women - black, white, asian, indian, whatever... I like 'em in all shapes and sizes too. Blondes, brunettes, redheads, short hair, long hair. I just know a beautiful woman when I see one.

With that said, the one thing I also still want is a woman to be FEMININE. I am absolutely not attracted to women who act like men.

Look, I have no problem with whatever fetish / lifestyles people want to live. I just don't get the attraction. Why a feminine lesbian wants to be a butchy lesbo who could pass as a dude minus to the stick. Just as I don't understand gay men that date guys that are overly effeminate.

did u guys know there's this little ruler they have in hospitals, and when a baby is born with 'ambiguous' genitals they pull out this ruler and measure them. and if the genitals are over a certain length, they call it a 'boy' and if they're under a certain length they call it a 'girl', and very often they'll do a surgical intervention on the newborn to make the class they've just chosen for this child seem less arbitrary.
Estimates on how many children are deemed 'ambiguous' in this way vary quite a lot but i've read that it's upwards of 8%.
This is all genuinely true and i'm not exaggerating in any way.

Seems like a real natural and solidly defined binary that's not being upheld artificially or anything hey

a reply to: Edumakated

Apples to apples? Okay. All I can tell you is that attraction doesn’t work any differently for gay people than it does for straight people. To say I am attracted to men as a male doesn’t mean every man I meet. As I said, different strokes.

The point is, you have a clear understanding of what you say when you use the word FEMININE. It doesn’t mean “in possession of female genitalia.” You have a distinct range of values for what you determine to be acceptable FEMININE behavior, dress, appearance, demeanor. That’s GENDER not SEX.

The fact that you keep talking about a “mannish” woman tells me that you actually understand the distinction between sex (physiology) and gender (identity).

There is a range of attractions whatever orientation or identity one claims.

a reply to: Gothmog

Has nothing to do with "body"
The term is "psyche"

Yeah, so we've been told... I can't agree with that part though, hence my "to the extent"....

I've looked at this from top to bottom, backwards and forwards, left and right and middle, and there just ain't no "there" there. Billy Dee can call himself whatever pronouns he wants, Billy Dee can think he's whatever gender he wants, but he's still just Billy Dee in the end.

a reply to: Gryphon66 Why because that is a fact and weird perversions of the truth,do not negate the truth,freaking liberals with confused minds and the sheeple does whatever the media deems "cool"

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: Gryphon66 Why because that is a fact and weird perversions of the truth,do not negate the truth,freaking liberals with confused minds and the sheeple does whatever the media deems "cool"

I agree that facts are facts. A bit tautological but good for emphasis.

However, the remainder of your post is somewhat disjointed political jargon; I’m afraid I can’t help you there.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"No. Just no.

There are two. Anything else is a birth defect, nothing more, nothing less."

Medical science disagrees.

Emphatically.

Actually, it is the opposite - at least with respect to humans (don't conflate the issue by trying to bring some asexual amorphous amphibians into it).

There is male. There is female. Anything else is a birth defect. PERIOD.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
"No. Just no.

There are two. Anything else is a birth defect, nothing more, nothing less."

Medical science disagrees.

Emphatically.

Actually, it is the opposite - at least with respect to humans (don't conflate the issue by trying to bring some asexual amorphous amphibians into it).

There is male. There is female. Anything else is a birth defect. PERIOD.

You are mistaken from a biological, physiological and medical point of view. Your classification of all differences as defects points directly at your agenda.

originally posted by: continuousThunder
did u guys know there's this little ruler they have in hospitals, and when a baby is born with 'ambiguous' genitals they pull out this ruler and measure them. and if the genitals are over a certain length, they call it a 'boy' and if they're under a certain length they call it a 'girl', and very often they'll do a surgical intervention on the newborn to make the class they've just chosen for this child seem less arbitrary.
Estimates on how many children are deemed 'ambiguous' in this way vary quite a lot but i've read that it's upwards of 8%.
This is all genuinely true and i'm not exaggerating in any way.

Well, actually, apparently you are exaggerating in a really, really huge way.

Apparently, the number is more like 1 in 4,500, or, about 0.02%

8%, vs the real number of 0.02%.

So, yeah, I'll call it - you're just pushing an agenda, with no interest in reality.

It is a BIRTH DEFECT. What is wrong with you people?

One of many succinct statements of the medical facts:

World Health Organzation - Gender and Genetics

Notice, there is no inclusion of the phrase “birth defects” in this description, just as there are none in any professional medical or scientific organizations’ description.

“Birth Defects” is a pejorative and unnecessary term in this instance.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You are mistaken from a biological, physiological and medical point of view.

You can repeat that till your head explodes, it doesn't change reality.

Enjoy that little bubble you live in, must be stifling.

Your classification of all differences as defects points directly at your agenda.

Yes, it does. I have a huge agenda.

The truth. It is all that matters.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
One of many succinct statements of the medical facts:

World Health Organzation - Gender and Genetics

Notice, there is no inclusion of the phrase “birth defects” in this description, just as there are none in any professional medical or scientific organizations’ description.

I couldn't care less what some geo-political organization with an obvious agenda to destroy the traditional family says.

First, it is a tiny fraction of people. Therefore, it is extremely rare, and not normal, aka abnormal, aka [birth defect.

The fact that they choose to not call a spade a spade simply exposes either their extreme bias, or fear of being targeted by radical extremists in the LGBT lobby.

“Birth Defects” is a pejorative and unnecessary term in this instance.

I agree some may use it in a pejorative way, but I certainly do not.

I treat someone born with such birth defects no differently than someone born with no arms - with sympathy and love.

But I am not about to deny truth in doing so.

Birth defects happen. Get over it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

And you can keep repeating your claim which has no backup other than your own opinion.

My opinion, if you choose to call it that, is informed by physiology, biology and medical science.

Yours is ... based on you.

On the contrary, the only bubble in evidence here is one that denies current scientific understanding.

There is a difference between belief and truth. You are welcome to your belief, preferences, prejudices, etc.

However, the claims that any differences in biological makeup in regard to sexual physiology and your repeated claim that any conception of gender besides yours is a celebration of “birth defects” is absurd.

IF we were to consider sex differences as birth defects, that actually further justifies supporting those who suffer from them socially, legally, ethically, philosophically, etc. You don’t seem to have thought through your generic argument very fully.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
My opinion, if you choose to call it that, is informed by physiology, biology and medical science.

And again, the exact opposite is true.

Yes there are some so-called scientific organizations and so-called authorities that have bent the knee to the radical LGBTQpsychobabble crowd and changed their documentation to conform to the pseudo-scientific radical agenda of that same crowd - but that doesn't make it true.

Science says there are two sexes. PERIOD. Get over it.

Men can't become women, and women can't become men. PERIOD. Get over it.

People can call themselves whatever they want, but that doesn't make it scientifically correct.

Yours is ... based on you.

On the contrary, it is based purely in scientific fact.

the only bubble in evidence here is one that denies current scientific understanding.

The only bubble in evidence here is one t hat pretends that pseudo-scintific psychobabble is real science.

There is a difference between belief and truth.

Agreed - and you are welcome to your belief, preferences, prejudices, etc.

However, the claims that any differences in biological makeup in regard to sexual physiology and your repeated claim that any conception of gender besides yours is a celebration of “birth defects” is absurd.

What is absurd is claiming that men can become women, or vice versa.

IF we were to consider sex differences as birth defects, that actually further justifies supporting those who suffer from them socially, legally, ethically, philosophically, etc. You don’t seem to have thought through your generic argument very fully.

I am 100% in favor of supporting these poor people suffering from gender dysphoria, in the same way I'm in favor of supporting people who think their TV is talking to them, but you don't help them by pretending their TV really is talking to them, you get them psychological help to try to figure out why they seem to think their TV is talking to them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

In biological terms, there is just male and female and hermaphrodites. Yes, there are the technical "XX", "XY", "XXY", etc versions of 'biological identity', but this is far less relevant to how we humans use appearanceto regulate how it is we understand ourselves (as gendered) vis-à-vis others genders. We cannot use appearances in the identity politics world of ours. Appearances - or biological structure - is more or less denigrated.