Zone1 Trans Supporters: If you can be Trans-gender, can people also be Trans-racial or Trans-age?

I think the objective intersex issue youre having can be summed up like this.

A machine prints a red card then a blue card.. then a red, then a blue…nonstop for years. Thousands and thousands of red and blue cards in a pile.

Objective Observers: it looks like there are 2 categories, red and blue.

Then, the machine prints a purple card out of nowhere.

You: “OMG ITS A NEW THIRD CATEGORY, IT MUST BE TREATED EQUAL TO THE OTHER TWO! ANY CLAIM OF RED OR BLUE BEING THE NORM IS COMPLETELY DEBUNKED WE HAVE TO RETHINK WHAT RED AND BLUE ARE OMG!”
Is this supposed to be an objective counter? 😄
Me/the rest of us: “looks like randomness/deformity in nature can happen, but naturally it’s clearly and objectively a binary of red or blue”

You choose to look under rocks and be confused. Go ahead, knock yourself out. The rest of us get it rather easily.
The obvious problem with your analogy is that nature isn't a machine you designed to only spit out red and blue cards. 😄
 
Is this supposed to be an objective counter? 😄

The obvious problem with your analogy is that nature isn't a machine you designed to only spit out red and blue cards. 😄
Are you saying you don’t have the mental capacity to understand analogies?
 
I would say that the argument that there is a right or wrong way for humans to be
There’s a clear blueprint of the characteristics of a human.
is not an objective argument, it's a religious one.
No it isn’t. Humans are supposed to have 2 arms. When they dont, they’re still human, just dealing with a deformity.

I dont get where religion came from, that was a very weird response.
You'd be stupid to think a baby born with one arm was caused by unnatural forces.
Nobody said that. Again, where are you getting this? Another conversation?
I didn't. I answered and broke down exactly why it's a silly question. Infertility doesn't make you less of a man or woman.
Nobody said it did. Again.. are you hearing voices or something?
Just because something happens infrequently doesn't mean it doesn't objectively happen.
Nobody said it doesn’t happen. Cheese and rice dude…

You need to debate what people say, not have arguments with made up opponents
 
Are you saying you don’t have the mental capacity to understand analogies?
I'm saying your analogy doesn't work. We design and program machines for specific tasks. They can't do what they aren't programed to do they can only do what we program them to do. For nature however, randomness and probability rather than certainty is an inherent feature.
 
I never referenced a poll.
You CLEARLY implied you were.
In fact you were specific about the contents of your "poll"

"A Majority of Americans support abortion restrictions in the 12-15 week range, you gonna tout that survey?"

But since you are not "most Americans" and I supplied a poll with wholly contrary information then you were just lying.
Why are we not surprised?
 
You CLEARLY implied you were.
In fact you were specific about the contents of your "poll"

"A Majority of Americans support abortion restrictions in the 12-15 week range, you gonna tout that survey?"

But since you are not "most Americans" and I supplied a poll with wholly contrary information then you were just lying.
Why are we not surprised?

I implied nothing. I made a statement, nothing more or less.
 
There’s a clear blueprint of the characteristics of a human.

No it isn’t. Humans are supposed to have 2 arms. When they dont, they’re still human, just dealing with a deformity.

I dont get where religion came from, that was a very weird response.

Nobody said that. Again, where are you getting this? Another conversation?

Nobody said it did. Again.. are you hearing voices or something?

Nobody said it doesn’t happen. Cheese and rice dude…

You need to debate what people say, not have arguments with made up opponents
The blueprints for how to build your body come from your genes and dna. We don't all share one blue print. There is no one way a human is supposed to be. That is not an objective statement. Our blue prints, meaning our genes and DNA might be similar but they are not the same and they will dictate different biological realities. Some of us will be short or tall or have red hair or blonde or black or be left handed or have webbed feet according to our own blue prints.
 
It's an honest question, because it follows the exact same logic, which is very simple:

"If I feel it, it is, and should be respected by all, or else you're a bigot"

That's basically the mantra, I don't think any leftist/woke LGBTQ activist could deny it.

So, if you can "feel" a different sex/gender, can you "feel" a different race? Can a white girl "feel" like she's an oppressed minority black woman? Can a 65 yr old man "feel" like he's 25 and demand to be called as such?

And if you say no, aren't you a bigot for denying their supposed right to feel how they believe they are?
Because there is such thing as gender dysphoria, and it has been recognized by (among others) the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American NIH, and the British NHS, and it is identified and defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.


As far as I know, neither racial dysphoria nor age dysphoria have received that much verification and scholarly acceptance by the medical community.
 
I'm saying your analogy doesn't work. We design and program machines for specific tasks. They can't do what they aren't programed to do they can only do what we program them to do. For nature however, randomness and probability rather than certainty is an inherent feature.
It works because when there’s an A/B binary and a rare anomaly C comes up, it changes nothing about the definitions of A or B.
 
There is no one way a human is supposed to be. That is not an objective statement.
Humans are supposed to have 2 arms. that’s an objective fact.

Humans are also supposed to have a head with a brain in it, 2 legs, a heart, 5 fingers and 5 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, etc….That’s the blueprint.

Do you disagree?
 
Because there is such thing as gender dysphoria, and it has been recognized by (among others) the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American NIH, and the British NHS, and it is identified and defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.


As far as I know, neither racial dysphoria nor age dysphoria have received that much verification and scholarly acceptance by the medical community.
You can point to medical institutions’ new theories all you want.. but remember that the medical experts, and their infallible medical intelligence, performed lobotomies and performed surgeries on babies without anesthesia because they thought babies couldn’t feel pain.

Basically, a portion of medical science can think something, but they are very likely going to be on the wrong side of history again IMO.

You can open up and swallow what they give you, I’ll use my discretion.
 
It works because when there’s an A/B binary and a rare anomaly C comes up, it changes nothing about the definitions of A or B.
1. AB and C doesn't describe a binary system. You listed three items and binary means two.

2. It's telling that you insist male and female are these immutable categories of specific combinations of chromosomes and genitalia and then everyone else (the intersexed), who have a whole host of varying characteristics you lump in together as simply C.

3. Anomaly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't mean a non objective thing we can dismiss as too unimportant to address. If your argument or theory has an anomaly in it that you cant explain the you have a faulty or incomplete theory or argument.
Humans are supposed to have 2 arms. that’s an objective fact.
Its not. When you use words like supposed to you aren't making an objective statement, you're making one about desire and ultimately emotion. Objectivity is about describing what you see, not what you want or hope to see. You could objectively say humans generally have two arms but occasionally are born with only one or none. That's an objective statement. It's about math and averages. Humans generally have two arms. That's a completely different statement than humans are supposed to have two arms.
Humans are also supposed to have a head with a brain in it, 2 legs, a heart, 5 fingers and 5 toes, 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, etc….That’s the blueprint.

Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. What is the objective argument for why this is supposed to be? That's a religious argument. Its only religion that insists there is a way humans are supposed to be. The scientific argument is that humans are made up of elements of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and calcium that make molecules of proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and DNA. You are the product of how these elements and molecules arrange themselves, and random mutations and evolution don't stop just because you think this form right here are how humans are supposed to be. People are born without arms because that's what their blueprints (dna) dictate. If DNA and genes (the blueprints for how you are built) are not the cause of some babies being born without arms, then what is? Magic? Voodoo? Not praying hard enough?
 
Last edited:
1. AB and C doesn't describe a binary system. You listed three items and binary means two.

2. It's telling that you insist male and female are these immutable categories of specific combinations of chromosomes and genitalia and then everyone else (the intersexed), who have a whole host of varying characteristics you lump in together as simply C.

3. Anomaly doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. It doesn't mean a non objective thing we can dismiss as too unimportant to address. If your argument or theory has an anomaly in it that you cant explain the you have a faulty or incomplete theory or argument.

Its not. When you use words like supposed to you aren't making an objective statement, you're making one about desire and ultimately emotion. Objectivity is about describing what you see, not what you want or hope to see. You could objectively say humans generally have two arms but occasionally are born with only one or none. That's an objective statement. It's about math and averages. Humans generally have two arms. That's a completely different statement than humans are supposed to have two arms.

Yes, I disagree. What is the objective argument for why this is supposed to be? That's a religious argument. Its only religion that insists there is a way humans are supposed to be. The scientific argument is that humans are made up of elements of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and calcium that make molecules of proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and DNA. You are the product of how these elements and molecules arrange themselves, and random mutations and evolution don't stop just because you think this form right here are how humans are supposed to be. People are born without arms because that's what their blueprints (dna) dictate. If DNA and genes (the blueprints for how you are built) are not the cause of some babies being born without arms, then what is? Magic? Voodoo? Not praying hard enough?
LOL… okay. I think this is just too ridiculous to continue.

If you think it’s wrong to say human beings have 2 arms, then I’ll just let you be in your own space. At least things are clarified.

Have a good one
 
LOL… okay. I think this is just too ridiculous to continue.

If you think it’s wrong to say human beings have 2 arms, then I’ll just let you be in your own space. At least things are clarified.

Have a good one
I'm fine with you running away when your arguments are challenged. I have no problem with the statement that humans generally have two arms. I question the statement that humans are supposed to have two arms.
 

Forum List

Back
Top