I dont id as a male or female so please change that

BoomerDuels
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
Reputation: 3

Re: I dont id as a male or female so please change that

Post #141 by BoomerDuels » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:08 am

Christen57 wrote:
Excellion wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Okay, and that's Arizona's choice to pander to entitled people who wanna sexually identify as attack helicopters and whatnot, not duelingbook's choice.

Exactly, then entitled binary people dont need to display their heterosexuality either, thats why im saying remove the gender selector all together if someone wants their gender to be known.


You do have the option to hide your gender as multiple people already pointed out that you can leave the thing blank instead of picking male or female. That counts as "removing it" and thus fits your criteria of it being "removed".

Non binary prefix in rome and greese


Some parts of the world doing it a long time ago doesn't make it valid today. I'm sure Rome and Greece also, for a long time, believed in their Gods and pseudosciences, and believed in witches/witchcraft, human sacrifices/rituals, preserving the corpses of pharaohs so they could have the appropriate body needed to move on to the afterlife, and so on, and I bet that they abandoned all of this once science and technology were introduced and evolved to disprove many of these things.

Genexwrecker is saying gender is "biological" then ignores intersex persons people of "Yy" or "xxy" chromosome pairings


No one in history has ever had either of those chromosome combinations as far as I'm aware.



You miss the point entirely. No-one has ever claimed in history that we should adopt every practice from ancient Rome or Greece. This was merely a way of showing that LGBT rights isnt just an entirely modern thing. You really do go out of your way to attack a strawman

Secondly, not showing your gender, is different than showing your lack of a gender. These are different concepts. Someone who identifies as neither a male or a female is different than a male who would rather not show his gender

Excellion
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:25 pm
Reputation: 4

Post #142 by Excellion » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:18 am

PENMASTER wrote:
Excellion wrote:
PENMASTER wrote:bullshit after bullshit. who are you to decide what you count as natural I can apply this shit to you all the same you apply it to me.
also what about anything that I said has anything to due with dolphins, they are warm-blooded and have lungs just because they arent the biggest thing in the ocean there are enough sea creatures like them they aren't exactly an oddity. also just cause classifications arent static doesn't mean you can make shit up and just change it cause you feel like it

Except im not the one saying something "isnt natural" then failing to actually PROVE IT. No sources, meanwhile everytime io point out that BY YOUR LOGIC Nonbinary IS natural, you move the goal post, youve done this 3 times now. About the dolphin statement, Dolphins were originally classified as fish until they were recatagorized as mammals, which is an example of what i was talking about, classifcations changing wildly and regularly and they CAN change on a whim.

bro just shut the fuck up you keep bringing up new random bullshit semantics also the classification of dolphins wassent changed on a whim, you keep trying to move the goalpost back and im setting it in its correct place

Well, this post is getting reported, No they arent "random semantics" I said there are no binaries in nature, you gave 2 examples, i explained how both are not binary and included that non-binary and trans are things in animals, you then moved the post and said "just because its natural doesnt mean its natural for humans" i asked you what WAS natural for humans, you said natural evolutions, i replied what about natural evolutions that lead to tails and horns, you again, moved the post and said "those dont count, those are freaks" again, i asked you "what is natural then" you have yet to actually point to a reason WHY its not "natural" you have no sources, and every time you move the post, i point out the flaw, and you move it again, for the last 2 hour.

PENMASTER
User avatar
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 9:08 pm
Reputation: 58

Post #143 by PENMASTER » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:22 am

Excellion wrote:
PENMASTER wrote:
Excellion wrote:Except im not the one saying something "isnt natural" then failing to actually PROVE IT. No sources, meanwhile everytime io point out that BY YOUR LOGIC Nonbinary IS natural, you move the goal post, youve done this 3 times now. About the dolphin statement, Dolphins were originally classified as fish until they were recatagorized as mammals, which is an example of what i was talking about, classifcations changing wildly and regularly and they CAN change on a whim.

bro just shut the fuck up you keep bringing up new random bullshit semantics also the classification of dolphins wassent changed on a whim, you keep trying to move the goalpost back and im setting it in its correct place

Well, this post is getting reported, No they arent "random semantics" I said there are no binaries in nature, you gave 2 examples, i explained how both are not binary and included that non-binary and trans are things in animals, you then moved the post and said "just because its natural doesnt mean its natural for humans" i asked you what WAS natural for humans, you said natural evolutions, i replied what about natural evolutions that lead to tails and horns, you again, moved the post and said "those dont count, those are freaks" again, i asked you "what is natural then" you have yet to actually point to a reason WHY its not "natural" you have no sources, and every time you move the post, i point out the flaw, and you move it again, for the last 2 hour.

you didn't say shit about tails or horns being evolutions but people that do somehow have those naturally which are just defects. you kept trying to move to other animals that fit what you thought when the topic should of stayed on humans the entire time
love2hate

BoomerDuels
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
Reputation: 3

Post #144 by BoomerDuels » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:23 am

Renji Asuka wrote:I really wanted to stay out of this debate entirely and frankly this thread should had been locked earlier. I been around twitter too long dealing with LGBTQ+ nonsense. But I'm left with no choice.

First, let's cut the crap regarding "Gender is a social construct"

The idea that gender is a social construct is relatively new by a very screwed up individuals being one of the founders to the idea. John Money, who raised a pair of twin boys. One as a boy, and one as a girl. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to be in sexual submissive poses while taking pictures, forced to grow their hair out, forced to wear dresses and play with dolls. He declared his experiment as a success.

Meanwhile the one raised as a girl played with his brother's toys in secret. 1 twin died from drug overdose. The other died from blowing his brains out with a sawn off shotgun.

If you still believe that gender is a social construct after learning this, then you quite literally support this experiment which would show how terrible of a person you really are.

Also important to note: DO NOT GIVE IN TO THE DELUSIONS OF THE MENTALLY ILL. Would you give into the delusions of a schizophrenic person? No, it's dangerous for everyone involved. Why would you do the same for people who don't know which bathroom to use? Do not expect me to call you by your preferred crap. If you have a fully functional vagina, you are a woman. End of story. If you have a fully functional penis you are a man. End of story. A woman cannot be a man and a man cannot be a woman. There is no "ands, if's or but" about it.


You understand that you both attack a strawman, give into reductio ad absurdum argumet fallacy, and assert "Common Sense" as superceding reality

1. The "Social Construct" theory does not get invalidated by 1 man and 1 man alone. Your argument is essentially, "1 man was a dickhead therefore, the point that him, alongside millions of thers were making is wrong" which is not a veyry suitable argument. You also attack a strawman here, no-one is even using that as the main justification of their transgenderism. Over the past few decades, we have compiled strides in psychological research all of which confirms transgenderism neurological perspective, rather than a sociological one

2. You engage in Reductio ad Absurdum while also proclaiming that "Common Sense" is a better argument than reason. You blew up "we should listen to non-binary people" to, "Should we also listen to schitzophremic people, while also equating those as equally valid claims. You cannot do this and also claim that your argument doesnt lose its validity immediately. Transgender and Non-binary people are not schitzophrenic. And you seem to go by a simple "Men have penises, women have vaginas" argument, which you conpletely refused to back up. While it is true that this applies to most people, you use the common sense, to refer to someone with a penis as male, as a supposed argument which does not have anything to do with the argument we try to make

Excellion
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:25 pm
Reputation: 4

Post #145 by Excellion » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:31 am

PENMASTER wrote:
Excellion wrote:
PENMASTER wrote:bro just shut the fuck up you keep bringing up new random bullshit semantics also the classification of dolphins wassent changed on a whim, you keep trying to move the goalpost back and im setting it in its correct place

Well, this post is getting reported, No they arent "random semantics" I said there are no binaries in nature, you gave 2 examples, i explained how both are not binary and included that non-binary and trans are things in animals, you then moved the post and said "just because its natural doesnt mean its natural for humans" i asked you what WAS natural for humans, you said natural evolutions, i replied what about natural evolutions that lead to tails and horns, you again, moved the post and said "those dont count, those are freaks" again, i asked you "what is natural then" you have yet to actually point to a reason WHY its not "natural" you have no sources, and every time you move the post, i point out the flaw, and you move it again, for the last 2 hour.

you didn't say shit about tails or horns being evolutions but people that do somehow have those naturally which are just defects. you kept trying to move to other animals that fit what you thought when the topic should of stayed on humans the entire time

You still have given no justification of what should and should not be classified as "natural" for a Huamn, i keep moving off humans because you want to discuss what is natural, so im talking about Nature, You have 1. No status/authority to decide what is/is not "Natural" for a human, you are not a doctor or biologist and you fail to cite one in any of your points. 2. You have not made a single valid point, all your arguments are supported by nothing but your own bias and no actual evidence. 3. You are a bigot.

Excellion
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 9:25 pm
Reputation: 4

Post #146 by Excellion » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:32 am

PENMASTER wrote:
Excellion wrote:
PENMASTER wrote:hormone therapy doesn't count as natural its injections of stuff that wouldn't be there if they hadn't had it and it doesn't even change much.
you wont process that being non binary isn't natural for humans and never will be just cause people think they are doesn't mean they are nd im talking about whole arms an example even you cant fuck up is growing fucking wings like a butterfly

First off, are you a doctor? a biologist? who are YOU to decide what "does and does not" count, by that logic, im sure youre also against vaccines? they are also "not natural" right? people can produce more testosterone or estrogen naturally, injections help regulate those hormones. and we have people growing prehensial tails... and horns but please tell me again how those people fit in your "totoall natural person" you have not given a single reason why non-binary is natural other than "because i think so" ignoring literal piles of supported evidence and years of history.

are you a fucking doctor dude?
just because vaccines arent natural doesn't mean im against them that's just out of nowhere bullshit like calling someone you don't a agree with a nazi which have done like 50 times by this point.
you got a bit of a point with the tails of horns things but the cause may be natural but the effect is not if we compare to most humans.
i have given the same reason why non binary isn't natural 20 fucking times and it hassent been cause I think so its cause it doesn't fucking exist just because someone thinks they are doesn't mean they are, just because their chromosomes or parts are fucked up doesn't mean they cant be categorized nor prove the categorizations arent real

Also, never called anyone a nazi, even though the arguments you are using are edging close to that line.

ScottyAdams
User avatar
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 5:04 pm
Reputation: 7

Post #147 by ScottyAdams » Wed Jun 01, 2022 8:58 am

BoomerDuels wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:I really wanted to stay out of this debate entirely and frankly this thread should had been locked earlier. I been around twitter too long dealing with LGBTQ+ nonsense. But I'm left with no choice.

First, let's cut the crap regarding "Gender is a social construct"

The idea that gender is a social construct is relatively new by a very screwed up individuals being one of the founders to the idea. John Money, who raised a pair of twin boys. One as a boy, and one as a girl. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to be in sexual submissive poses while taking pictures, forced to grow their hair out, forced to wear dresses and play with dolls. He declared his experiment as a success.

Meanwhile the one raised as a girl played with his brother's toys in secret. 1 twin died from drug overdose. The other died from blowing his brains out with a sawn off shotgun.

If you still believe that gender is a social construct after learning this, then you quite literally support this experiment which would show how terrible of a person you really are.

Also important to note: DO NOT GIVE IN TO THE DELUSIONS OF THE MENTALLY ILL. Would you give into the delusions of a schizophrenic person? No, it's dangerous for everyone involved. Why would you do the same for people who don't know which bathroom to use? Do not expect me to call you by your preferred crap. If you have a fully functional vagina, you are a woman. End of story. If you have a fully functional penis you are a man. End of story. A woman cannot be a man and a man cannot be a woman. There is no "ands, if's or but" about it.


You understand that you both attack a strawman, give into reductio ad absurdum argumet fallacy, and assert "Common Sense" as superceding reality

1. The "Social Construct" theory does not get invalidated by 1 man and 1 man alone. Your argument is essentially, "1 man was a dickhead therefore, the point that him, alongside millions of thers were making is wrong" which is not a veyry suitable argument. You also attack a strawman here, no-one is even using that as the main justification of their transgenderism. Over the past few decades, we have compiled strides in psychological research all of which confirms transgenderism neurological perspective, rather than a sociological one

2. You engage in Reductio ad Absurdum while also proclaiming that "Common Sense" is a better argument than reason. You blew up "we should listen to non-binary people" to, "Should we also listen to schitzophremic people, while also equating those as equally valid claims. You cannot do this and also claim that your argument doesnt lose its validity immediately. Transgender and Non-binary people are not schitzophrenic. And you seem to go by a simple "Men have penises, women have vaginas" argument, which you conpletely refused to back up. While it is true that this applies to most people, you use the common sense, to refer to someone with a penis as male, as a supposed argument which does not have anything to do with the argument we try to make


Whilst this is true, it can also be argued that Excellionz is relying heavily on argumentum ad verecundiam (or appeal to authority) in their own statements - which depending on who you ask is fallacious in its own right.

Either way, there is a lot of cognitive and confirmation biases being thrown around on all sides.

BoomerDuels
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2020 10:14 pm
Reputation: 3

Post #148 by BoomerDuels » Wed Jun 01, 2022 9:33 am

ScottyAdams wrote:
BoomerDuels wrote:
Renji Asuka wrote:I really wanted to stay out of this debate entirely and frankly this thread should had been locked earlier. I been around twitter too long dealing with LGBTQ+ nonsense. But I'm left with no choice.

First, let's cut the crap regarding "Gender is a social construct"

The idea that gender is a social construct is relatively new by a very screwed up individuals being one of the founders to the idea. John Money, who raised a pair of twin boys. One as a boy, and one as a girl. He forced the one that was raised as a girl to be in sexual submissive poses while taking pictures, forced to grow their hair out, forced to wear dresses and play with dolls. He declared his experiment as a success.

Meanwhile the one raised as a girl played with his brother's toys in secret. 1 twin died from drug overdose. The other died from blowing his brains out with a sawn off shotgun.

If you still believe that gender is a social construct after learning this, then you quite literally support this experiment which would show how terrible of a person you really are.

Also important to note: DO NOT GIVE IN TO THE DELUSIONS OF THE MENTALLY ILL. Would you give into the delusions of a schizophrenic person? No, it's dangerous for everyone involved. Why would you do the same for people who don't know which bathroom to use? Do not expect me to call you by your preferred crap. If you have a fully functional vagina, you are a woman. End of story. If you have a fully functional penis you are a man. End of story. A woman cannot be a man and a man cannot be a woman. There is no "ands, if's or but" about it.


You understand that you both attack a strawman, give into reductio ad absurdum argumet fallacy, and assert "Common Sense" as superceding reality

1. The "Social Construct" theory does not get invalidated by 1 man and 1 man alone. Your argument is essentially, "1 man was a dickhead therefore, the point that him, alongside millions of thers were making is wrong" which is not a veyry suitable argument. You also attack a strawman here, no-one is even using that as the main justification of their transgenderism. Over the past few decades, we have compiled strides in psychological research all of which confirms transgenderism neurological perspective, rather than a sociological one

2. You engage in Reductio ad Absurdum while also proclaiming that "Common Sense" is a better argument than reason. You blew up "we should listen to non-binary people" to, "Should we also listen to schitzophremic people, while also equating those as equally valid claims. You cannot do this and also claim that your argument doesnt lose its validity immediately. Transgender and Non-binary people are not schitzophrenic. And you seem to go by a simple "Men have penises, women have vaginas" argument, which you conpletely refused to back up. While it is true that this applies to most people, you use the common sense, to refer to someone with a penis as male, as a supposed argument which does not have anything to do with the argument we try to make


Whilst this is true, it can also be argued that Excellionz is relying heavily on argumentum ad verecundiam (or appeal to authority) in their own statements - which depending on who you ask is fallacious in its own right.

Either way, there is a lot of cognitive and confirmation biases being thrown around on all sides.


I agree with you there. It does take me quite a bit to remind myself that not everything and everyone that agrees with me is automatically true. It just seems to me that the experts in this topic seem to all agree that transgender people's identity are valid, so I really don't see a reason to disbelieve them when there hasn't been much work trying to disprove it - however this entire previous claim is an appeal to authority in it's own right, so do take it with a grain of salt

Christen57
User avatar
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 10:37 pm
Reputation: 182
Location: New York, United States of America

Post #149 by Christen57 » Wed Jun 01, 2022 12:03 pm

Excellion wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Excellion wrote:


"Klinefelter syndrome is a chromosomal condition in boys and men that can affect physical and intellectual development." - your medlineplus.gov source

This would mean you having XXY chromosomes still makes you male.

Then why would it matter what they put as their gender?


Because there are still only 2 genders. Male and female.



Right... then why shouldnt gender be any different?


Because there's no need to allow any additional genders to be added besides the 2 already displayed: Male and Female.

"Lost third gender of japan" covers it.


Could you link to it?

Not genetically... which was the point youre bith trying to make, if its a binary system then there are only xy or xx, if its xxy or xyy or yy, it is not, by your definition, a male or female, thats the point.


If it's XXY or XYY, either of those would still make you male as you still have at least 1 Y chromosome, and YY hasn't existed as a chromosome pair in anyone so far.


Yes, they can artifical incemination can be done between 2 females using bone marrow to inceminate an egg


Even if you extract sperm and put it in the woman to impregnate her, the sperm still requires a male to produce and donate to begin with, no?



First off who decides what is considered "new" and "old" and who said north america sets the standards for social norms?


"New" meaning, compared to the Roman, Greek, and Japanese locations you listed (which you said had this for hundreds of thousands of years or so), it hasn't been widely done before in America.

Social norms can vary somewhat from country to country and can also overlap somewhat. It can be the "social norm" in one country to make up and accept additional genders besides male and female but not in another country.

The decriptor given for "male" and "female" as provided by genexwrecker is "xy" or "yy" which they are not.


Genexwrecker gave no such descriptor. She said there are only "male" and "female" genders and that if you have something like XXY or XYY you're still ultimately male.

Also no if you read what i stated insimination is between 2 females they extract bonemarrow to then fertilize an egg no sperm, no Male, no nothing.


How much does this stuff cost (because here it's saying the price ranges from $1,700 to $7,000)? https://www.mdsave.com/procedures/bone-biopsy-or-aspiration/d783fdc4

Other places say it's more than that, like, tens of thousands of dollars.

Who's realistically gonna spend that much money just to have some of their own bone marrow extracted for a pregnancy when, with a help of just a fully grown male, getting pregnant can be done for free?

And you are using completely subjective and arbitrary dates for what is "new" and "old" the newest nation is still roughly 40-50 years, in that tike non binary persons were a thing in egypt, in europe and in asia. Thatw left than a life time, not "new" enough for you?

I'm basing this purely off of what you said earlier:

In order words, you're saying that, for hundreds of thousands of years, most continents but North America practiced this stuff, no? In that case, this would be considered "new" (or "newer") in North America compared to those other continents.

You guys have yet to actually give any reason or source for any of your bigotry

You can't be bigoted towards that which does not exist. There is no real "attack helicopter" gender for us to be bigoted towards, and ScottyAdams in this thread clarified that "Wakashu" isn't a gender either but rather an orientation.

meanwhile ive provided 4 medical journals, 2 reports from the DoA, and several reputable articles regarding the history of nonbinary persons


You've provided nothing of the sort. The only things you cited so far in this thread are these 6:

None of which have anything to do with any history of a truly nonbinary person existing, while some of them only say that some males can be born with some female-looking genitalia, and vice versa. However, in those cases, your gender is still still either "male" or "female" (just with said genitalia that looks like that of the opposite sex), not "neither gender" or "non-binary".

if by now you dont see the problem replace what youve said so far about non binary persons with any ethnic race of your choosing and see how it sounds.


I said this before and I'll say it again: Unlike the genders you're making up, races and colors do exist and can be visibly observed.

YES humans HAVE changed gender via hormone therapy the same process as other animals in the wild


Humans can change the chromosomes and chromosome combinations they were born with through a little "therapy"?

BoomerDuels wrote:
Christen57 wrote:
Excellion wrote:Exactly, then entitled binary people dont need to display their heterosexuality either, thats why im saying remove the gender selector all together if someone wants their gender to be known.


You do have the option to hide your gender as multiple people already pointed out that you can leave the thing blank instead of picking male or female. That counts as "removing it" and thus fits your criteria of it being "removed".

Non binary prefix in rome and greese


Some parts of the world doing it a long time ago doesn't make it valid today. I'm sure Rome and Greece also, for a long time, believed in their Gods and pseudosciences, and believed in witches/witchcraft, human sacrifices/rituals, preserving the corpses of pharaohs so they could have the appropriate body needed to move on to the afterlife, and so on, and I bet that they abandoned all of this once science and technology were introduced and evolved to disprove many of these things.

Genexwrecker is saying gender is "biological" then ignores intersex persons people of "Yy" or "xxy" chromosome pairings


No one in history has ever had either of those chromosome combinations as far as I'm aware.



You miss the point entirely. No-one has ever claimed in history that we should adopt every practice from ancient Rome or Greece. This was merely a way of showing that LGBT rights isnt just an entirely modern thing. You really do go out of your way to attack a strawman


I'm claiming we shouldn't adopt the practice of sexually identifying as "attack helicopter" and whatnot just because some Romans and Greeks may have done so in the past.

Secondly, not showing your gender, is different than showing your lack of a gender. These are different concepts. Someone who identifies as neither a male or a female is different than a male who would rather not show his gender


No evidence was shown yet by either you or Excellion that a person with a true "lack of a gender" exists. Simply choosing to "identify as neither a male nor a female" doesn't automatically make you neither "male nor female" just like how simply choosing to identify as an attack helicopter doesn't automatically transform you into an attack helicopter.

What does make you male or female is the chromosome combination you were born with. If you were born with the chromosome combination "XX," you're female (regardless of what other "defects" might've come along with that). If you were born with the chromosome combination of "XY," "XYY," or "XXY," you're male, at least according to the sources shown so far by Excellion. Funny how, so far, every source he's cited to "debunk" me has either supported my case instead or at least failed to support his case that there's some third real gender out there.

It just seems to me that the experts in this topic seem to all agree that transgender people's identity are valid, so I really don't see a reason to disbelieve them


I would rather see those experts "prove" it or provide evidence of it (instead of just blindly "agreeing" that it's valid to pander to the entitled and make themselves look good). Them simply "seeming to all agree" on it doesn't automatically make it valid. An example of what would make it valid is if a new chromosome combination was discovered and shown in some born humans that hasn't yet been classified as belonging to the male or female gender.

MarshieDemon
User avatar
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2021 1:41 am
Reputation: 48

Post #150 by MarshieDemon » Wed Jun 01, 2022 12:35 pm

I woke up this morning to 12 notifications all stemming from this topic. We've gone so far from the original scope of the question, and I'm not comfortable having this discussion continue here.

Locked.
Image

Head Administrator


Return to “Ask Me Anything”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 81 guests