Gender doesn't exist...

Discussion in 'Gay & Lesbian Rights' started by Yant0s, Mar 12, 2021.

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Now you HAVE embarrassed yourself since you chose to ignore my gentle warning do your own research first! :eek:

    Go and look at YOUR post #462 that is a DIRECT RESPONSE to my post #455.

    Then in YOUR post #474 you made yet another FALSE allegation even after YOU claimed in post #462 you would actually read the links I provided in #455. Seems that you are quick to accuse and slow to do what you claimed you would do. Why is that?

    Furthermore I am going to DEBUNK your ongoing BS regarding your "out of context" quibbling fallacy!

    PDS has made the utterly BOGUS allegation that Gender is purely a psychological/sociological matter that ONLY applies to humans. I provided a FAIR and BALANCED article that you still INSIST upon REFUSING to read that looked at the PROBABILITY of gender in other species.

    So let's examine PDS's bogus allegation a little further in order to understand the CONTEXT that he is (ab)using.

    Heterosexuality exists in human and other species.

    Homosexuality exists in human and other species.

    I am not aware of ANYONE who has MADE the CONSCIOUS decision to either be heterosexual or homosexual.

    https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/sexual-orientation

    To date there has NOT been any DEFINITIVE genetic basis determined for the existence of homosexuality in humans.

    If YOU agree with PDS's ILLOGICAL thinking then homosexuality MUST be PURELY psychological/sociological in nature given his FALSE premise that Gender MUST be psychological/sociological in nature, right?

    So are all of those homosexuals of other species making the conscious choice to NOT be heterosexuals?

    Or are they acting on their own INSTINCTUAL sexual ORIENTATION?

    The article I provided examined the evidence available in other species and left open ALL possibilities while comparing their behavior to that which RESEMBLES transgender within our human species.

    PDS chose to DISPARAGE the ENTIRE article based upon cherry picking a SINGLE reference to the current ambiguity regarding the definition of transgenderism.

    That is very essence of cherry picking that YOU would have identified had YOU bothered to read the actual article for yourself.

    Not ONLY have you NEVER read the article you have NOT read any of the LINKS that I provided in #455 either.

    At this stage PDS has zero credibility on this topic and YOUR ongoing nitpicking allegations based upon YOUR failure to actually read the links provided means that there is nothing to differentiate your posts from his.

    Sad!
     
  2. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another asinine STRAWMAN! :eek:
     
  3. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Utter nonsense!
     
  4. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends on which type of normal you are talking about. Take left handed people. Statistically they are not normal. Neither are any of the LBGT+ types of people. There is no denial of that. However, from a stand point of "It's normal for a person to be left handed", that is where the attempt to make anything LBGT normal is happening. Acknowledging the former does not undermine the latter
     
  5. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Insofar as to where the burden of proof lies, yes you are. Mind you that does not require you to participate in that effort, but the responsibility to prove a positive statement in a debate environment is upon the person making the positive statement. Furthermore, simply claiming something as a fact does not make it so. ^Albert Einstein factually said so to Dame Judy Dench.^

    At odds right now, is not whether or not something is factual as far as any aspect of transgenderism is concerned. It is whether or not something was taken out of context to present a different view that what would be presented if the full context of the larger portion was included. One could even disagree with what was presented in the full context and still be able to show how a portion was taken out of context.

    At this point, you have claimed that another poster has taken a quote from your own source material, and presented it as a counter argument to one of your arguments, but that it was taken out of context and doesn't mean what that poster claims it does. As the one who has claimed the quote is out of context, it is your responsibility, within the context of the debate environment, to show the relevant portion of the source material and how it changes what the presented quote means from what the other poster said. Again, no one can make you actually do that, but the responsibility and burden of proof is still yours. The very fact that you do not want to do so, presents an implication that you know that the other poster is correct in that context and you don't want to admit it because you cannot prove it.

    Oh and I have since read the article. At this point, I know whether or not the passage was taken out of context. However, it is not my point of contention, so I am under no obligation or burden to prove your assertion.

    BTW, I took the time to look back over the thread. You have only posted links 10 times this whole thread, as of post #500, out of a total of 88 posts for this thread. Granted some of those posts have multiple links within the post. Some of those links have absolutely nothing to do with whether science has found transgender DNA, such as the ones on Paul Cameron and sexual orientation in post #144. So now, which of the other 9 posts is this supposed link to proof that science has found transgender DNA. Because all of the links I followed are using that language if "we have found possibilities, but have not proven them as facts yet."
     
  6. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OBFUSCATION drivel content duly noted FTR!

    Have a nice day!
     
  7. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Given that you initially claimed back in Post #405 that:

    And since I, on that same page, asked where was the proof of that, and have been asking for that ever since, you are the embarrassed one in that it took you another 50 posts before you provided anything to support your assertion, avoiding the request multiple times. Hell even your post 455 was in response to something and someone else entirely.

    And yes, I actually have a life, and the regular care of 4 grandchildren ranging from 2 to 7, so I don't always get the time I want to peruse these articles in depth is soon as I see them. I even note that I will try to get back to them. I also have other threads and forums I'm on. My apologies that I lead such a full life, and didn't get to those articles as fast as you felt I should.

    As far as the 455 articles go, I already pointed out that the Science Daily one has not shown that science has identified transgender DNA. The have identified some variants the MIGHT be a cause of transgenderism. It even notes that further study would be needed to confirm.

    The CNN article is an OPINION article, listed in the OPINION section of the website. So right off the bat with that article you are being rather hypocritical in accusing others in their use of OPINIONS. That said, there were links in the article. The first of which leads to the third of your links, so we'll get back to that one. From the abstract of the next link:

    So no identifying transgender DNA there.

    From the abstract of the second article linked from the OPINION piece:

    Again, no evidence of actually having IDENTIFIED transgender DNA.

    The rest of the links are to articles that do not address anything about transgender DNA as far as I was able to tell, but feel free to point out which ones you think do.

    As to the third link, there is not one thing in there about transgender DNA, or any type of DNA for that matter. If you disagree, then by all means provide a quote from the article and letter and we'll go through it.

    There was no BS there. Even if I were to agree that he did quote out of context, that still does not relieve you of your responsibility to prove you assertion by providing the relevant portions of the article that shows how the eliminated surrounding wording changes the context of what he quoted, from your own source, to something different from what was presented in the article.

    The author himself said:
    And as far as for when he was quoting from your article, there was no claim that gender ONLY applied to humans. Was there another post where he stated as much? Post #?

    This is your error right here. As I have noted before, I can disagree with what he has claimed overall, but that doesn't automatically make what he quoted as out of context, nor does it relieve you of your burden of proof to show that it was out of context.

    Still does not negate the fact that it is upon you, within the context of the debate environment, to provide the proof of your assertion that what he quoted was out of context for his claim. As you say, facts matter. Oh wait I said that wrong. FACTS MATTER!

    Well all the above and my previous post disproves that, but in all fairness, you could not have known that at the time of your posting. My sympathies that you do not have the patience for people who have a life outside of these forums.

    What is sad is your false conflation that my reading the article has any bearing on your responsibility to prove your assertion. My reading or not reading the article will never factually change whether or not he actually was out of context. FACTS MATTER! The fact remains that under the context of the debate environment you (generalized and specifically) hold the responsibility to prove and support your own assertions should they be challanged. FACTS MATTER!
     
  8. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Second attempt at OBFUSCATION drivel content duly noted FTR!

    Guess what...we ALL have LIVES outside of this forum and that has to be one of the MOST puerile attempts to invoke that as an excuse I have encountered in many years.

    Yes, YOU did have a responsibility to actually READ the article in question when I pointed out that it ANSWERED your incessant NITPICKING on that issue.

    However since you have now ESTABLISHED that nitpicking is your PRIMARY modus operandi I will no longer waste my time on the content of your posts in future.

    Here is your complimentary all expenses paid ticket to Cyberia.

    Have a nice life!
     
  9. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For someone that it takes pulling teeth to get to SUPPORT their assertions, you don't have much room to talk for v, or PUERILE. So it seems that when presented with FACTS all you want to do is DEFLECT. And here I went and READ everything you asked me to, and you can't even RESPOND to it. My RESPONSIBILITY to read the article only comes in play if I want to refute or highlight something from the article. When showing that you have failed to support your CLAIM of out of context, it doesn't matter what article is used or whether anyone ELSE has read it or not. It only matters that you are FACTUALLY the one who has the responsibility to show the proof of YOUR assertions. Then IF I feel that your PROOF is wrong, I would need to read the article to support MY assertion that you are wrong. As I did with your articles from post 455, that you can't seem to counter, and want to cry OBFUSCATION at. Well if indeed it is OBFUSCATION, you should be easily able to show how what I said obscures the subject.

    I'm still waiting on a link that proves: "Science has identified the transgender DNA!" It isn't in post 455, as already shown
     
    Nonnie likes this.
  10. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Probability the one with a penis thinking he's a female and the one with the vagina who thinks she's a male.
     
  11. Nonnie

    Nonnie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    8,399
    Likes Received:
    7,246
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When you have a production line, you have a quality control department to weed out the tiny minority from the majority that didn't develop correctly.
     
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Oh, piffle.

    Now bother someone else.

    Oh, regarding substantiation, you fail on that count a lot.
     
    Maquiscat likes this.
  13. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    what, no table pounding?

    Sad.
     
  14. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,249
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    always in every case from now in perpetuity common parlance. So if you don't know open the dictionary.





    yet nobody argues for left-handed people having rights by talking about some people being born without a right arm or losing it in an accident.

    Doing that would be stupid just like talking about other people with sex defects.
    So the issue I was responding to were idiots who brought up birth defects as an argument for trans people.

    Are these people saying trans people are defective from birth?
     
  15. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think you can say that for many it is mental. I would be reluctant to give a percentage, but psychologically speaking, there's a common thread or theme in home environment during early childhood.

    There's also a body of evidence to suggest that in some instances, but not 100% of the time, it is hormonal if not pre-natal then in early childhood.

    And then there's the influence of pheromones.

    A study in the US that was replicated in the US and other States showed that when the father is continuously present in the home -- meaning normal family life not that the father is at home because he doesn't work -- females enter puberty later. When the father is absent from the home, females tend to enter puberty later. That was determined to be caused by pheromones emitted by the father. That study was replicated and noted that even when there's a step-father or just boyfriends, females enter puberty earlier.
     
  16. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    FAILURE to acknowledge that YOUR content was DEBUNKED as DISINFORMATION says volumes.

    Sad!
     
  17. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you (generalized, not necessarily you, but if the shore fits....) are taking the religious bent to this, then God is in charge of that quality control department not humans, and who are we to claim He's not doing His job?

    Also, that is a axiom for mass production. Humans don't do that in reproduction (except maybe Octomom). When craftsmen ply their trade, before the era of mass production, each piece was unique and different in minor ways, even as they all functioned more or less the same.
     
  18. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure, let's open up MW:

    I didn't leave all the examples in because that was just massive, but a few to illustrate the point. First off is definition 2: occurring naturally. Unless you want to claim that someone is going into people and manipulating them into LBGT's (which in all honesty some people are claiming), then they are as normal as left handed people.

    And then there is the example from 1b: Despite having this "rule", there are quite a few English words out there that do not follow it, and they are still considered normal. A lack of frequency does not automatically indicate not normal, at least by all definitions.

    Definitions 3b, c, and d: Well that does seem to be the crux of the debate as to whether transgender is a defect or mental impairment.

    So yes it does matter how one is using the word "normal"

    Which holds no bearing on the point that being normal does not automatically mean being frequent, as we the point given. It has nothing to do with the reasons some people might give for it. Thunder is normal, but just because some people claim that it's the Asgardians/Norse Gods having a bowling tournament, it doesn't suddenly become not normal.

    A birth defect, if indeed we want to call it that, might well be what is responsible for people being other than cisgender heterosexual. Or it might well be one of many causes. Of course the concept of "birth" defects" could be many different things as well. The problem arises when some want to claim that something they don't like is a defect simply because it is not frequent. Looking back at being left handed. That was an actual defect at one point in our history. We know better now, but it is a perfect example of how we can treat something normal but infrequent as not normal, a defect.

    And quite frankly, I would say that typically (although not always) being transgender is a birth defect, if you look at the concept that a defect is something that causes problems with general living in the world. Setting aside bullying/persecution, being any other sexuality but heterosexual is not really a hindrance to a person. But with being transgender, even if every person in the world accepted it as fact and normal, it would still be a problem because the TG person would still most likely develop GD, and would need to have that problem addressed.
     
  19. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Some clarification here, please. You are making overlapping statements. Was one of those "us"s supposed to be UK maybe? I am also guessing that you meant to say that females entered into puberty later when the father was absent, yes?
     
  20. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another vacuous, unsubstantiated claim.

    Brilliant!
     
  21. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Kindly REFRAIN from PROJECTING your own issues onto others.

    Have a nice day!
     
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Another vacuous, unsubstantiated claim.

    Brilliant!
     
  23. Polydectes

    Polydectes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    53,249
    Likes Received:
    18,015
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    next time just Google it.

    I thought it interested in semantics if you don't understand the language I can't help you.

    gender performance is a social construct is not genetic it is not biological. Telling her to follow all of this science it can't possibly be a birth defect it is a trend.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pot, kettle, achromatic
     

Share This Page