Current Events > New research shows a vast majority of cis people won't date trans people

(+) Yeah! (+)

Russman posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Russman posted...

gunplagirl posted...

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact.

What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics.

Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.

*insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc.*

*insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible

Human chimeras have been recorded. *laughs* some bioengineer you are.

Not a single human chimera has been able to have both sexes. Unlike the lab rats you are citing. If you were honest and not merely pushing a narrative, you would know that human chimeras are from blood transfusions or absorbing a dead twin fetus. Neither of which would lead to a transgender.

Quoth the raven

Oh wait that joke doesn't work here

Says the guy who works at fed ex and used a picture from a kid's text book
---

gunplagirl posted...

So do several million people not have any statistical merit or do they?

They do and that's not what I'm even saying. Again, I was just correcting the factual data we have on the subject. I even admit when I myself was wrong earlier.
---

Russman posted...

Neither of which would lead to a transgender.

Nobody is saying that sex chromosomal differences lead to transgenderism lol.

The only reason anybody is responding to anyone with anything re:sex chromosomes is that the simple story is easy disproven by chromosomal variations in the human population.

It really is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Dayum @RE_expert44 banged @Sayoria?

Edit:
Sayoria posted...

I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. *Shrug*

I did not have sexual relations with that user.

Also lol. FYI I have a daughter. A real burn female daughter. Biological too. Born from a mother who was also born female.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Russman posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Russman posted...

gunplagirl posted...

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

Ok? Would you link something that proves this fact wrong? Its in a textbook because its a universally accepted scientific fact.

What, that sex chromosomes exist? How exactly does that have anything to do with what is being discussed here? Turns out that human development is a lot more complicated than elementary school genetics.

Scientific fact is kinda a silly phrase. The only "facts" are data, not the conclusions generated by them, and even then data has uncertainty around it.

*insert list of known chimeras here, insert list of fish that change sex and can procreate as either here, etc.*

*insert list of hum- oh wait this isnt possible

Human chimeras have been recorded. *laughs* some bioengineer you are.

Not a single human chimera has been able to have both sexes. Unlike the lab rats you are citing. If you were honest and not merely pushing a narrative, you would know that human chimeras are from blood transfusions or absorbing a dead twin fetus. Neither of which would lead to a transgender.

Quoth the raven

Oh wait that joke doesn't work here

Says the guy who works at fed ex and used a picture from a kid's text book

A) I dont work there
B) its in a textbook because its a basic scientific fact. Thats not really helping your case.
C)
---

LockeMonster posted...

gunplagirl posted...

So do several million people not have any statistical merit or do they?

They do and that's not what I'm even saying. Again, I was just correcting the factual data we have on the subject. I even admit when I myself was wrong earlier.

Apology accepted

Now get back to work, you've got like 20 minutes left and your boss wouldn't approve
---

Imagine responding seriously to gunplagirl in this topic
---

Russman posted...

All I want is a real woman.

---

I like biological women. Somehow that's wrong now according to SJWs.
---

RE_expert44 posted...

P4wn4g3 posted...

Dayum @RE_expert44 banged @Sayoria?

Edit:
Sayoria posted...

I am probably the closest thing to a biological female that you'll ever get in your lifetime. *Shrug*

I did not have sexual relations with that user.

Also lol. FYI I have a daughter. A real burn female daughter. Biological too. Born from a mother who was also born female.

Did you phenotype and genotype your daughter? Because it sounds to me like she's a synth and you're trying to get us to believe she's a real life human child and honestly I can't say I approve of synths. *pulls out nuka grenade*
---

Russman posted...

B) its in a textbook because its a basic scientific fact. Thats not really helping your case.

Most information in textbooks below (and including, but much more the case below) graduate level textbooks is so general and simplistic that it's pretty much incorrect. A textbook is not a good source for scientific information.
---

RE_expert44 posted...

Sayoria posted...

That's fine. Weeds out the assholes. I want a real man, not some asshole like that.

All I want is a real woman.

oohhhhh snaaaaapppp!
---

PanzerElite posted...

I like biological women. Somehow that's wrong now according to SJWs.

You're offending people who suck just by being who you are. Gj.
---

gunplagirl posted...

Apology accepted

I wasn't apologizing to you.

gunplagirl posted...

Now get back to work, you've got like 20 minutes left and your boss wouldn't approve

Are you 5 years old? What's with the attitude?
---

Bass_X0 posted...

Straight guys really don't like f***ing people who have dicks or used to have dicks.

That's pretty much all there is to it.

What's the relevance of "used to have a dick" anyway? Who cares? What difference does it make? If she hasn't had the surgery and thus still has a dick and you're not into dick, fair enough. If her not being able to get pregnant is the issue, fair enough. I don't get this "used to" argument.
---

thelovefist posted...

Imagine responding seriously to gunplagirl in this topic

At least you waited over q hundred posts before coming in to spam my username like a lovesick... Fist?
---

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

Neither of which would lead to a transgender.

Nobody is saying that sex chromosomal differences lead to transgenderism lol.

The only reason anybody is responding to anyone with anything re:sex chromosomes is that the simple story is easy disproven by chromosomal variations in the human population.

It really is quite irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Look like phds are irrelevant nowadays
---

LockeMonster posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Apology accepted

I wasn't apologizing to you.

gunplagirl posted...

Now get back to work, you've got like 20 minutes left and your boss wouldn't approve

Are you 5 years old? What's with the attitude?

If being concerned that you are wasting company time for personal use makes me 5, then I guess I'm 5^5

And apology still accepted, thanks for admitting you were wrong, takes a strong amount of personal character to do so
---

Russman posted...

Look like phds are irrelevant nowadays

Do you notice how there's a big caveat in that sentence that says "under normal conditions"?
---

Lol this topic
---

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth
2) it ignores intersex people
3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery
4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities
5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy
All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids
While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc.
6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption

It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous.

Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.

It adds nuance. No, I'm not saying intersex people are a new sex. I'm saying they'd still have to fit somewhere in the spectrum between male and female. And guess what? That means that xxy people would be classified as either male or female. And even then there's some who might have androgen sensitivity and never develop a penis. It adds nuance and that's precisely why it gets brought up, to demonstrate that "xx is girl xy is boy" is not some universal truth and that all people are only one are the other, it's that there's far more configurations that fit under both or either.

No, it means there are some deformities in humans. It has nothing to do with the wider discussion of males and females. It's disingenuous to bring them into this topic of discussion. And honestly, chromosomes really do not need to be brought into the discussion at all. If you have a penis, you're biologically male. If you have a vagina, you're biologically female. Someone of either sex can choose to live as the opposite sex. At the end of the day, that is all that is happening. I will call any trans person by their preferred pronoun, but that does not actually change the underlying reality.

Transpeople should not be allowed to play segregated competitive sports as it introduces unfair conditions. The majority of people will not want to actively date them. The only thing society should do is not shame transpeople for living how they want to live. It should not have to bend over backwards change reality.

gunplagirl posted...

If being concerned that you are wasting company time for personal use makes me 5, then I guess I'm 5^5

And apology still accepted, thanks for admitting you were wrong, takes a strong amount of personal character to do so

I'm done with work for the day and thanks for admitting you can't handle being corrected nor read and resort to trolling instead of acting civil like I have with you.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

PanzerElite posted...

I like biological women. Somehow that's wrong now according to SJWs.

You're offending people who suck just by being who you are. Gj.

I can't believe female woman is a term I have to use, but that's the crazy world we live in now.
---

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

Look like phds are irrelevant nowadays

Do you notice how there's a big caveat in that sentence that says "under normal conditions"?

Its talking about intersex. If you can link a higher study then Im all for it, but you cant, because they dont exist, and you are so politically biased that you ignore basic scientific facts. Youre just like a creationist.
---

nemu posted...

Someone of either sex can choose to live as the opposite sex. At the end of the day, that is all that is happening. I will call any trans person by their preferred pronoun, but that does not actually change the underlying reality.

The reality is that their brain likely developed in the womb towards sex-atypical sexual dymorphism. The likely reality is that subjectively and biologically, they are their transitioned gender.
---

The irony from TC, given her history of opinions on preferences based on race, is always fun to witness
---

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

nemu posted...

gunplagirl posted...

1) "biological males" is still based entirely upon using general rules regarding chromosomes and applying it as a universal truth
2) it ignores intersex people
3) gender confirmation surgery is reconstructive, not cosmetic and especially if you know anything about functionality post surgery
4) "real women" is another term that's been coined solely to diminish the validity of trans identities
5) it's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy
All "real women" have xx chromosomes and have menses and can have kids
While ignoring prepubescent people, post menopausal people, etc.
6) and you can't even prove most trans people's chromosomes unless you phenotype them. Making the assumption might be right most of the time but I could tell you that there's nobody breaking into cars in a downtown parking lot and more often than not it's true, doesn't mean there's actually scientific backing to that assumption

It's a universal truth that men are men and women are women. I don't know why you think that can be argued against. The idea that gender expression can be a bit more fluid is one thing, but you're trying to change biological reality. There's being progressive and then being disingenuous.

Like, the idea of bringing intersex people into it is just dumb. That is an unfortunate deformity. It's not a new sex. It does not redefine sex. When people bring it up, they act like intersex people are fully function hermaphrodites or something. It's a series of conditions, some worse than others.

It adds nuance. No, I'm not saying intersex people are a new sex. I'm saying they'd still have to fit somewhere in the spectrum between male and female. And guess what? That means that xxy people would be classified as either male or female. And even then there's some who might have androgen sensitivity and never develop a penis. It adds nuance and that's precisely why it gets brought up, to demonstrate that "xx is girl xy is boy" is not some universal truth and that all people are only one are the other, it's that there's far more configurations that fit under both or either.

No, it means there are some deformities in humans. It has nothing to do with the wider discussion of males and females. It's disingenuous to bring them into this topic of discussion. And honestly, chromosomes really do not need to be brought into the discussion at all. If you have a penis, you're biologically male. If you have a vagina, you're biologically female. Someone of either sex can choose to live as the opposite sex. At the end of the day, that is all that is happening. I will call any trans person by their preferred pronoun, but that does not actually change the underlying reality.

Transpeople should not be allowed to play segregated competitive sports as it introduces unfair conditions. The majority of people will not want to actively date them. The only thing society should do is not shame transpeople for living how they want to live. It should not have to bend over backwards change reality.

So you criticize that intersex people are unrelated, then ignore chromosomes to bring up genitals. Sayoria has a vagina, thanks for verifying she's a woman. <3

And then you bring up sports and society which are unrelated. What the fuck.
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

The irony from TC, given her history of opinions on preferences based on race, is always fun to witness

So what if she doesn't want to have relations with a khajiit, it just means more skooma for me.
---

Russman posted...

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

Look like phds are irrelevant nowadays

Do you notice how there's a big caveat in that sentence that says "under normal conditions"?

Its talking about intersex. If you can link a higher study then Im all for it, but you cant, because they dont exist, and you are so politically biased that you ignore basic scientific facts. Youre just like a creationist.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2834

Good, albeit even a bit dated at this point, review on the topic of sexual differentiation in light of more modern evidence. You can really just look at any of Margaret McCarthy's work for really impressive experimental manipulations of brain differentiation during ("human") prenatal (rodent postnatal) development
---

Metro2 posted...

Vyrulisse posted...

If you got nice legs and thick thighs I'm all in no matter what you are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpcmfjFN8OI" data-time="

Thank you for noticing
---

Yeah, big surprise there. I think its so funny how the left is trying this, if youre not attracted to transgender people, then theres something wrong with YOU, horseshit.

Thats just not the way things are. Im atteacted to the opposite sex; thats it.
---

why is it that humans are the only species of mammal without biological females and biological males? @COVxy @gunplagirl

COVxy posted...

So you criticize that intersex people are unrelated, then ignore chromosomes to bring up genitals. Sayoria has a vagina, thanks for verifying she's a woman. <3

And then you bring up sports and society which are unrelated. What the fuck.

No, she has penis that has been modified to resemble a vagina. There is a difference.

The problem with bringing up intersex people is that you're acting like it's some golden goose. The fact that they do not fall into the normal definition of sex does not mean the normal definition of sex is lacking or wrong. They are deformed. It doesn't mean they are lesser people because of it, but that's all it is. People being born with more or less fingers does not mean we need to redefine the idea of how hands work.

The point about sports and society is that transpeople should be accepted and not discriminated against for being transpeople. The problem with people of your mindset is that you want to extend that further and dictate how people have to think.

I'm straight. I like people with vaginas. Simple
---

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

Look like phds are irrelevant nowadays

Do you notice how there's a big caveat in that sentence that says "under normal conditions"?

Its talking about intersex. If you can link a higher study then Im all for it, but you cant, because they dont exist, and you are so politically biased that you ignore basic scientific facts. Youre just like a creationist.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nn.2834

Good, albeit even a bit dated at this point, review on the topic of sexual differentiation in light of more modern evidence.

How exactly does that article prove anything? Where are the facts? How do neural pathways differentiate sex itself? How does the formation of the reproductive system get effected by the brain?
---

I'm just saying that if she's hot and has a dick

I'm gonna suck that dick.
---

To the surprise of no one. However ...
Carlbertomfg posted...

I'm just saying that if she's hot and has a dick

I'm gonna suck that dick.

So, what exactly is it that makes a woman a woman?

This is mostly directed at the "gender and sex are different" crowd, as well as the "there is no such thing as biological sex" crowd.

Russman posted...

How exactly does that article prove anything? Where are the facts? How do neural pathways differentiate sex itself? How does the formation of the reproductive system get effected by the brain?

I don't think you've realized yet that constructing a category on the basis of the differentiation of the reproductive system misses the extreme complexity of development and sexual dimorphism.

This definition you have isn't scientific and is arbitrary, despite being taught to you in elementary school biology.
---

We needed a study to show that straight people arent gay?


---

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

How exactly does that article prove anything? Where are the facts? How do neural pathways differentiate sex itself? How does the formation of the reproductive system get effected by the brain?

I don't think you've realized yet that constructing a category on the basis of the differentiation of the reproductive system misses the extreme complexity of development and sexual dimorphism.

This definition you have isn't scientific and is arbitrary, despite being taught to you in elementary school biology.

I dont think you realize that the definition isnt at all arbitrary and that the study you linked talks about what someone thinks their sex is, which is the definition of gender. Please start over on your PhD, you definitely arent qualified.
---

Trans people would prefer to date other trans people though, right?

Forced participation is the end goal. Just say it.
---

great bait TC.

Russman posted...

I dont think you realize that the definition isnt at all arbitrary and that the study you linked talks about what someone thinks their sex is, which is the definition of gender. Please start over on your PhD, you definitely arent qualified.

Why do you categorize sexual dimorphism of the brain differently than sexual dimorphism of the body?

Both are seemingly important for males and females, yes? Both are almost always correlated, right?

The truth is sexual dimorphism and development is complex, and pretending like silly arbitrary constructed categories that you were taught in 3rd grade are fully grounded and impossible to update highlights why you are so keen on the phrase "scientific fact".
---

Theres this craaaazy thing people like to do called reproduce
---

I would
---

COVxy posted...

Russman posted...

I dont think you realize that the definition isnt at all arbitrary and that the study you linked talks about what someone thinks their sex is, which is the definition of gender. Please start over on your PhD, you definitely arent qualified.

Why do you categorize sexual dimorphism of the brain differently than sexual dimorphism of the body?

Both are seemingly important for males and females, yes? Both are almost always correlated, right?

The truth is sexual dimorphism and development is complex, and pretending like silly arbitrary constructed categories that you were taught in 3rd grade highlights why you are so keen on the phrase "scientific fact".

No. GID is a disorder. It represents when you think you are the wrong sex. You arent actually the sex you think you are. There are differences in the brains of males and females. But transgenders have completely different makeups altogether. So do people with schizophrenia. And OCD. Its a disorder.
---

Only a small percentage of transfolk are post op. That's the reason why.
---

COVxy posted...

The inference to be made here if you say "I 100% would never date a transperson because I'm heterosexual" is that you still don't view them as their transitioned gender. Pretty clear how that's transphobic.

Transphobic is a made up term by the snowflake generation, its not taken seriously
---