J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

Gender, like so many things in society, changes as a society changes. What gender is now is not what gender was a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. Definitions of such things change with time and should reflect society. And we live in a society where a sub section of people are used as a trojan horse for the alt right and who are openly discriminated against in everyday life.

A rather unfortunate comparison given what we’re discussing here are people attempting to masquerade as someone they aren’t.

Calhoun

One eyed Jack wrote: »

A rather unfortunate comparison given what we’re discussing here are people attempting to masquerade as someone they aren’t.

Interesting line of deflection for some poor behavior from parts of a community. I don't think I have ever seen an undercover spy accusation like this before.

Makes it easier to deny anything negative I suppose .

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? Are you saying that you honestly think there are no differences between a man and a woman?

I'm asking what you think the differences are.

Bigbagofcans

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm asking what you think the differences are.

Meat and two veg.

Gynoid

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm asking what you think the differences are.

In humans, sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[85] Generally, the five factors are either all male or all female. Sexual ambiguity is rare in humans, but wherein such ambiguity does occur, the individual is biologically classified as intersex.

Sexual dimorphism among humans includes differentiation among gonads, internal genitals, external genitals, breasts, muscle mass, height, the endocrine (hormonal) systems and their physiological and behavioral effects. Human sexual differentiation is effected primarily at the gene level, by the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome, which encodes biochemical modifiers for sexual development in males.[86] According to Clark Spencer Larsen, modern day Homo sapiens show a range of sexual dimorphism, with average body mass difference between the sexes being roughly equal to 15%.[87]

The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40–60% the upper body strength of males, and 70–75% the lower body strength.[88] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10–20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472 kg vs 333 kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'.[89]

Females are taller, on average, than males in early adolescence, but males, on average, surpass them in height in later adolescence and adulthood. In the United States, adult males are, on average, 9% taller[90] and 16.5% heavier[91] than adult females. There is no comparative evidence of differing levels of sexual selection having produced sexual size dimorphism between human populations.[92]

Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 30 percent greater lung volume per body mass. On average, males have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher hemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.[93]

Females typically have more white blood cells (stored and circulating), more granulocytes and B and T lymphocytes. Additionally, they produce more antibodies at a faster rate than males. Hence they develop fewer infectious diseases and succumb for shorter periods.[93] Ethologists argue that females, interacting with other females and multiple offspring in social groups, have experienced such traits as a selective advantage......

Etc etc ...all easily googled. This from wikipedia.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm asking what you think the differences are.

Well the most obvious difference is the fact that men are typically born with a penis and testicles, women are born with a vagina.

Then there are the genetic differences.

There are many, many differences.

These aren't my thoughts. These are facts.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Well the most obvious difference is the fact that men are typically born with a penis and testicles, women are born with a vagina.

Then there are the genetic differences.

There are many, many differences.

These aren't my thoughts. These are facts.

But you can literally change that. So say a person medically changes their sexual organs. What's the difference now?

Gynoid

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But you can literally change that. So say a person medically changes their sexual organs. What's the difference now?

They are a transgendered person, a transman or a transwoman, what was known in old money as a transsexual. Which they are perfectly welcome to be. Once they are of a mature enough age to truly know the incredibly significant extent of such an action and how it will profoundly affect them physically forever. They have not however biologically become the opposite sex. Most sensible transgendered people know this perfectly well and accept the reality.

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But you can literally change that. So say a person medically changes their sexual organs. What's the difference now?

No you can not do any such thing, literally, figuratively or otherwise. The differences in physiology will still be present, and further differentiated by the fact that the person will have to be on artificial hormones in order to maintain their physical appearance, and that’s not to mention all the other side effects as a consequence of medical treatment which will do little to address their underlying dysphoria as their dysphoria is not just based upon how they perceive themselves, but how they are perceived by other people.

If you imagine the treatments involved are as simplistic as a nip and tuck job, you are either being wilfully disingenuous, or grossly misinformed. I’m leaning more towards the former than the latter tbh.

batman_oh

Gynoid wrote: »

In humans, sex is determined by five factors present at birth: the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, the type of gonads, the sex hormones, the internal reproductive anatomy (such as the uterus in females), and the external genitalia.[85] Generally, the five factors are either all male or all female. Sexual ambiguity is rare in humans, but wherein such ambiguity does occur, the individual is biologically classified as intersex.

Sexual dimorphism among humans includes differentiation among gonads, internal genitals, external genitals, breasts, muscle mass, height, the endocrine (hormonal) systems and their physiological and behavioral effects. Human sexual differentiation is effected primarily at the gene level, by the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome, which encodes biochemical modifiers for sexual development in males.[86] According to Clark Spencer Larsen, modern day Homo sapiens show a range of sexual dimorphism, with average body mass difference between the sexes being roughly equal to 15%.[87]

The average basal metabolic rate is about 6 percent higher in adolescent males than females and increases to about 10 percent higher after puberty. Females tend to convert more food into fat, while males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40–60% the upper body strength of males, and 70–75% the lower body strength.[88] The difference in strength relative to body mass is less pronounced in trained individuals. In Olympic weightlifting, male records vary from 5.5× body mass in the lowest weight category to 4.2× in the highest weight category, while female records vary from 4.4× to 3.8×, a weight adjusted difference of only 10–20%, and an absolute difference of about 30% (i.e. 472 kg vs 333 kg for unlimited weight classes)(see Olympic weightlifting records). A study, carried about by analyzing annual world rankings from 1980–1996, found that males' running times were, on average, 11% faster than females'.[89]

Females are taller, on average, than males in early adolescence, but males, on average, surpass them in height in later adolescence and adulthood. In the United States, adult males are, on average, 9% taller[90] and 16.5% heavier[91] than adult females. There is no comparative evidence of differing levels of sexual selection having produced sexual size dimorphism between human populations.[92]

Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 30 percent greater lung volume per body mass. On average, males have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher hemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.[93]

Females typically have more white blood cells (stored and circulating), more granulocytes and B and T lymphocytes. Additionally, they produce more antibodies at a faster rate than males. Hence they develop fewer infectious diseases and succumb for shorter periods.[93] Ethologists argue that females, interacting with other females and multiple offspring in social groups, have experienced such traits as a selective advantage......

Etc etc ...all easily googled. This from wikipedia.

But that's just like...your opinion man :pac:

batman_oh

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

But you can literally change that. So say a person medically changes their sexual organs. What's the difference now?

Read the stuff above and stop being ridiculous!

Gynoid

batman_oh wrote: »

But that's just like...your opinion man :pac:

My favourite movie. Im in love with the Dude

LineOfBeauty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No you can not do any such thing, literally, figuratively or otherwise. The differences in physiology will still be present, and further differentiated by the fact that the person will have to be on artificial hormones in order to maintain their physical appearance, and that’s not to mention all the other side effects as a consequence of medical treatment which will do little to address their underlying dysphoria as their dysphoria is not just based upon how they perceive themselves, but how they are perceived by other people.

If you imagine the treatments involved are as simplistic as a nip and tuck job, you are either being wilfully disingenuous, or grossly misinformed. I’m leaning more towards the former than the latter tbh.

I'm making a point here with these simplistic questions.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm making a point here with these simplistic questions.

If you are making a point you would want to make it a little more clear.

So far, you think that removing your penis is "literally" the same as being born with a vagina.

"Changing your sex organs" is in no way, especially not literally, the same as being born with them.

If I get a tail grafted on to my arse, i'm not literally the same as a cat.

So what is your point with the simplistic questions?

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are making a point you would want to make it a little more clear.

So far, you think that removing your penis is "literally" the same as being born with a vagina.

"Changing your sex organs" is in no way, especially not literally, the same as being born with them.

If I get a tail grafted on to my arse, i'm not literally the same as a cat.

So what is your point with the simplistic questions?

You have to answer them first. You can change your sexual organs. So now, what's the difference?

Gynoid

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I get a tail grafted on to my arse, i'm not literally the same as a cat.

?

Haha! That line has a future as a political slogan. Really made me laugh.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

You have to answer them first. You can change your sexual organs. So now, what's the difference?

The difference is, you weren't born with them. They are artificial. They are not related to your genetic makeup. They are cosmetic. They are made to replicate and simulate the sexual organs that you wished you had.

So a huge difference.

Now, what is your point?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

You have to answer them first. You can change your sexual organs. So now, what's the difference?

Okay, let’s focus on sexual attraction. So, you transition from male to female. Does the neo-vagina:

- alter your waist-to-hip ratio to female parameters?
- make your shoulders narrower?
- remove your Adam’s apple?

Those are things that many straight men and gay women will flag as male traits and not be attracted to. And that’s just a sample of the markers really.

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

I'm making a point here with these simplistic questions.

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

You have to answer them first. You can change your sexual organs. So now, what's the difference?

Nobody is under any obligation to answer your questions. You could save yourself an awful lot of trouble by simply making your point. One cannot change their sexual organs either. They can undergo surgical procedures which if all goes well, pseudosexual organs will be fashioned from existing tissue. These artificial organs will not function in any respect similar to the way in which natural biological organs function. They are for appearances only. That’s another difference which you don’t appear to appreciate.

Oh fcuk it there’s simply no comparison has any validity between natural and artificially constructed organs, it would be akin to me suggesting that my artificial hip is a natural hip. It’s not even ‘as good as’, it will always be artificial.

Sheeps

This failure to acknowledge difference between the physiology of men and women by trans radicals is literally the reason we're having transgender athletes participating in women's sports breaking all sorts of records. The fear of being labeled anti-progressive has resulted in some absolutely insane decisions to let transgender athletes compete against biological women. Transgender athletes are damaging the integrity of women's sports where they are allowed to participate.

LineOfBeauty

Deleted User wrote: »

The difference is, you weren't born with them. They are artificial. They are not related to your genetic makeup. They are cosmetic. They are made to replicate and simulate the sexual organs that you wished you had.

So a huge difference.

Now, what is your point?

So because you aren't born with something it isn't part of who you are? In your world it is really that black and white? I ask because I'm sure this isn't the 1st time I've talked to you on threads like this and so I'm curious, has a transgender person being treated like a 1st class citizen ever infringed upon your rights? Because, at times, your wording makes it sound as though you've had some real personal issues with transgender people.

So what if a person isn't born with something, if a person wants to be something, has gone through a mentally painstaking process and a physically difficult process to become something, what is it that stops you from accepting that? Because they aren't "born with it?" Does that not seem like a weak explanation?

ELM327

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Okay, let’s focus on sexual attraction. So, you transition from male to female. Does the neo-vagina:

- alter your waist-to-hip ratio to female parameters?
- make your shoulders narrower?
- remove your Adam’s apple?

Those are things that many straight men and gay women will flag as male traits and not be attracted to. And that’s just a sample of the markers really.

There's obviously something that does the above in the transition because as a straight male I find some male to female trans women very attractive

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sheeps wrote: »

This failure to acknowledge difference between the physiology of men and women by trans radicals is literally the reason we're having transgender athletes participating in women's sports breaking all sorts of records. The fear of being labeled anti-progressive has resulted in some absolutely insane decisions to let transgender athletes compete against biological women. Transgender athletes are damagig the integrity of women's sports where they are allowed to participate.

The refrain tends to be that very few transgender people become athletes. But there doesn’t need to be that many to completely distort things.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ELM327 wrote: »

There's obviously something that does the above in the transition because as a straight male I find some male to female trans women very attractive

I didn’t say all straight men and gay women! The hormones do have some effect on body shape of course. But you can’t shave bone.

One eyed Jack

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So because you aren't born with something it isn't part of who you are? In your world it is really that black and white? I ask because I'm sure this isn't the 1st time I've talked to you on threads like this and so I'm curious, has a transgender person being treated like a 1st class citizen ever infringed upon your rights? Because, at times, your wording makes it sound as though you've had some real personal issues with transgender people.

So what if a person isn't born with something, if a person wants to be something, has gone through a mentally painstaking process and a physically difficult process to become something, what is it that stops you from accepting that? Because they aren't "born with it?" Does that not seem like a weak explanation?

It’s an absolute solid explanation.

I’m not sure why you expected it wouldn’t be when the entire purpose of someone wanting to be something they’re not, and subjecting themselves to mentally and physically difficult processes, is because they themselves simply cannot accept who they are.

If they aren’t prepared to hold themselves to their own standards, I’m not seeing why anyone else should be expected to accept something they can’t accept themselves.

LineOfBeauty

LineOfBeauty wrote: »

So because you aren't born with something it isn't part of who you are? In your world it is really that black and white? I ask because I'm sure this isn't the 1st time I've talked to you on threads like this and so I'm curious, has a transgender person being treated like a 1st class citizen ever infringed upon your rights? Because, at times, your wording makes it sound as though you've had some real personal issues with transgender people.

So what if a person isn't born with something, if a person wants to be something, has gone through a mentally painstaking process and a physically difficult process to become something, what is it that stops you from accepting that? Because they aren't "born with it?" Does that not seem like a weak explanation?

No. Not even in the slightest is it a weak explanation.

You asked me the difference between a man and a woman. I explained it is biological. I explained that biological sex is not a matter of opinion nor is it something that can be "willed". You cannot choose your biology. It is that black and white.

A transgender person should always be treated as a 1st class citizen. This does not extend to mean that I should deny biology nor should they be able to have the rights or benefits that are afforded solely to the opposite sex. A transgender person will never be the sex that they wish to be. To say any different is a lie.

Why do you think it is acceptable to lie?

Gynoid

ELM327 wrote: »

There's obviously something that does the above in the transition because as a straight male I find some male to female trans women very attractive

Feeling attracted to a transwoman is perfectly fine and some of them do look lovely.
But you still cannot say they are a biological woman because they are not.
Which is the whole point. Re Maya.
The person you are attracted to is a transwoman.
And so what? Why would they want anyone to subvert their reason and say they have literally changed biological sex. That kind of tyrannical ideological demand on another would not be attractive surely?

lozenges

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I didn’t say all straight men and gay women! The hormones do have some effect on body shape of course. But you can’t shave bone.

There is - facial feminisation surgery - which Caitlyn Jenner availed of. It is very expensive though and as such not available to most people.

The fact remains that if in 1000 years, archaeologists discover the skeleton of a trans woman (male at birth), they will identify that skeleton as male. Width of the pelvis, length of long bones, overall height, brow and jaw heaviness and other features will not change no matter what surgery is done on the soft tissues (unless the person had puberty blockers).

So, sex is biological. Does that mean that people who wish to change gender shouldn't be afforded respect and protections in law? Sure. But they are a trans woman/man and should be distinguished from biological males or females.
And while they should be addressed as they wish, and in the vast majority of cases be treated as their desired gender, there are some situations where that might not be appropriate. EG not be permitted in female domestic violence refuges, prisons unless they have had bottom surgery.

LineOfBeauty

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s an absolute solid explanation.

I’m not sure why you expected it wouldn’t be when the entire purpose of someone wanting to be something they’re not, and subjecting themselves to mentally and physically difficult processes, is because they themselves simply cannot accept who they are.

If they aren’t prepared to hold themselves to their own standards, I’m not seeing why anyone else should be expected to accept something they can’t accept themselves.

That is the point, they are people who have been born into the wrong body, and to be very honest I'm not sure that you or I could fully understand what that must feel like unless you have lived it. I have friends who have transitioned and they have tried to explain their state of mind, what it was like growing up ect. and honestly it was horrible to hear but actually going through it, I don't know if I'd be able.

"They can't accept who they are" because they have been wronged from birth and they've undergone an incredibly difficult process in so many aspects (physically, mentally, legally) to change that. Why is that such a hard thing for people to accept?

gw80

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Okay, let’s focus on sexual attraction. So, you transition from male to female. Does the neo-vagina:

- alter your waist-to-hip ratio to female parameters?
- make your shoulders narrower?
- remove your Adam’s apple?

Those are things that many straight men and gay women will flag as male traits and not be attracted to. And that’s just a sample of the markers really.

On that note,
I wonder how long before an an archeologist is accused of a hate crime for assuming the gender of a skeleton.