Study shows most Cis People Won't Date Trans People.

[Candy Kappa]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

What's interesting to me lately is that lot of articles and stuff I'm seeing coming out, "sexual reassignment surgery"/"SRS" has almost entirely been removed from popular vernacular anywhere on the internet. It's just not said anymore. It's suddenly now, "Bottom Confirmation Surgery." For motivations that seem pretty obvious.

Liberals are doing their "we need to control the language" thing. Divorced from science.

it's almost like language changes over time. Similar to Idiot and Imbecile no longer are medical terms used by psychiatrists to categorize a person's level of learning disability.

plus, bottom surgery refers to just that and not the rest like top surgery and facial surgery.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Nature is NOT black and white, as some might naievely believe, and there are literally hundreds of permutations of what is "normal" within any given species. And there is a thing called evolution which tends to alter those species norms over time. It's why certain moths changed colors over time to adapt to changes in the environment brought about by humans, even within the last two centuries.

As hard as it is for some to grasp, being genetically one or the other is NOT the only option. It is simply the most common denomiinator in the equation.

Except existence of women and men are fundamental part of the human species and mammals in general. And so far most mammals have not evolved out of that. Yes, there are some rare mutations, but generally there are still only female and male species.

Appealing to evolution is ridiculous: evolution has created division for female and male species in the first place. It existed since simple mononuclear organisms.

Believing that humanity might evolve out of that division, especially with no outside hostile conditions present, especially since humanity very successfully procreates with females and males and ESPECIALLY given that humans are very complex organisms, which can't significantly evolve and change in a span of a hundred years, makes all this "evolution" talk absolutely ridiculous and unscientific, unless one believes in some kind of magic.

Bottom line: humans won't evolve out of females and males in the next hundred years or most likely ever. Outside of wishful thinking of some mentally unstable people, there is no way it can naturally happen, since most people don't have desire to butcher themselves and alter their bodies with hormones and other crap, and since there are no outside factors pressuring humanity as a species to make such significant evolutionary change.

When 99% of species are genetically normal, it means that this is normal for those species. So, presence of female species with clearly defined female traits and presence of male species with clearly defined male traits are normal for humanity. Various mutations shouldn't be taking into account, since mutations do happen in every species and they are not indicative of what species normally are.
At least that's how logic works on that matter. Not sure what about ideology and "magics".

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

What's interesting to me lately is that lot of articles and stuff I'm seeing coming out, "sexual reassignment surgery"/"SRS" has almost entirely been removed from popular vernacular anywhere on the internet. It's just not said anymore. It's suddenly now, "Bottom Confirmation Surgery." For motivations that seem pretty obvious.

Liberals are doing their "we need to control the language" thing. Divorced from science.

1984 in a nutshell.
Peace is war, war is peace, men are women, women are men.

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

it's almost like language changes over time.

It's almost like this change was done to further validate delusions of mentally sick people that they are of sex, they are not.

[newfan]

so far acceptance is society goes, the issue here may improve to a degree, where you get a person who is attracted to a transperson for example but fear of not being accepted by society may prevent them from dating to that person. However, so far as a persons instinctive desires go, this is who people are, while they may accept and respect how others identify themselves, they cannot make themselves feel or desire something that they just don't.


.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by snake

Most "trans people" really don't look convincing enough to make a straight person want to date them.

I would say some might be a better word to use in this instance than most, and that not all trans people want a straight partner.

In the sex work industry trans women who have not chosen to undergo bottom gender confirmation surgery are quite popular with straight cis men, according to Dan Savage.

But I don't have peer-reviewed dataset to support that assumption.
Only anecdotal evidence.

Like, does anyone else have the experience of straight dudes being way more fascinated by dick, then straight women are by vulvas?

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

That said, I think that the ingrained desire to gravitate toward the genetic opposite gender IS a huge part of the reason for those stats, but at the same time, social norms are changing, so those numbers might change in a decade or two once the stigma of being trans begins to disappear, much like the stigma of being gay or bi has been doing. Nature is NOT black and white, as some might naievely believe, and there are literally hundreds of permutations of what is "normal" within any given species. And there is a thing called evolution which tends to alter those species norms over time. It's why certain moths changed colors over time to adapt to changes in the environment brought about by humans, even within the last two centuries.

Our closest living genetic relative is the bonobo chimpanzee, who will literally engage in sexual intercourse with pretty much anything. And they will have sex outside of a specified breeding season, basically they use it as a form of group cohesion, and for straight-up pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the pale to make the assumption that heterosexual monogamous pair bonding is a relatively new adaptation to our species.

We didn't really need paternity certainty of any sort until after the Advent of agriculture anyway.

What's interesting is that sexually dimorphic body plans don't really exist in cultures that are still predominantly hunter-gatherer. There's also a correlation between penis size and how much bodily autonomy a woman has any given culture.

That's not really relevant to the conversation at hand, I just think it's pretty interesting.
That evolutionarily speaking, survival of the just good enough continues even when we seemingly are not making choices based on survival.

As hard as it is for some to grasp, being genetically one or the other is NOT the only option. It is simply the most common denomiinator in the equation.

One of the main problems with understanding human biology is that we only seen to study pathology.
There's a lot of use of normal in this thread, and how 99% of people are normal. statistically speaking 99% of a thing is something that falls within two standard deviations away from the average. if all of our understanding of the human genome and human physiology comes not from normative studies, but only from pathological ones, we have no idea where that mean is. We have no idea where the center of that normal distribution Parabola sits.

We have no idea what normal is, and won't when our data set includes people having medical problems.

Monogamy might not be normal for us, in a non coercive environment.
X and Y might not be normal predictors of genetic male or female, because the average person who isn't pathological for something gets tested to see if those chromosomes exist in agreement with their secondary sexual characteristics.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

In the sex work industry

Sex work? You mean rape per money?
Heh, typical libfem.
Something tells me, you are one of those people who won't support this particular line of thinking by example. Or do you?

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Like, does anyone else have the experience of straight dudes being way more fascinated by dick, then straight women are by vulvas?

If they do, its called Homosexuality.
No Homo.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Our closest living genetic relative is the bonobo chimpanzee, who will literally engage in sexual intercourse with pretty much anything. And they will have sex outside of a specified breeding season, basically they use it as a form of group cohesion, and for straight-up pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the pale to make the assumption that heterosexual monogamous pair bonding is a relatively new adaptation to our species.

Are you hinting that monogamous relationships are somehow "bad" and humans must revert to ****ing everything regardless of their sexual preferences? And all of this just to serve small group of people who can't get sex due to their mental problems?
Because, I am not really sure where are you going with this idea.

Also, other animals have widely different habits, when it comes to sex and relationships. Monogamous relationships also exist in the wild, so it's not typical modern human trait only.

Besides, humans are much more complicated than any other animal. So such correlations, while interesting, are largely meaningless, since they don't take into account human intellect and our range of emotions. Not to mention human cultures.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

That's not really relevant to the conversation at hand, I just think it's pretty interesting.
That evolutionarily speaking, survival of the just good enough continues even when we seemingly are not making choices based on survival.

Humanity has opted from natural selection as soon as the first medicine has been developed.

Right now it's not "survival of the fittest" or "good enough", but complete blind chaos, where your chances of survival depend on multitude of random factors, including your health, doctors, medicines, dangers of the outside world and so on.

However, the core of the evolutionary mechanism: presence of females and males is still there and will be there.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

One of the main problems with understanding human biology is that we only seen to study pathology.
There's a lot of use of normal in this thread, and how 99% of people are normal. statistically speaking 99% of a thing is something that falls within two standard deviations away from the average. if all of our understanding of the human genome and human physiology comes not from normative studies, but only from pathological ones, we have no idea where that mean is. We have no idea where the center of that normal distribution Parabola sits.

We have no idea what normal is, and won't when our data set includes people having medical problems.

If we stop speaking in grandeur mumbo-jumbo and go back to Earth, than we do know what is normal - being human who doesn't want to butcher their body IS normal.
Being human who wants to butcher their body because their feelings dictate so, is not. Simple as that.

Otherwise, your ideas are stink of traditional PoMo garbage-think: "we don't know anything, therefore everything can be truth".

No, we do know something, and while some of this knowledge is inconclusive, there are enough data to understand what is normal for our species and its members.

Otherwise, doctors won't be ever treat even cold, if they didn't have idea of what normal state of human being is, not to mention even more serious conditions.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Monogamy might not be normal for us, in a non coercive environment.
X and Y might not be normal predictors of genetic male or female, because the average person who isn't pathological for something gets tested to see if those chromosomes exist in agreement with their secondary sexual characteristics.

As I said useless PoMo.
Even than, it doesn't change that females and males are different and no amount of interference can turn a man into an actual woman. And vice-versa.
You're welcome.

[Leonardo_thebest]

What's the over under on how long it will be before Sumac comes out?

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

It's infuriating to see just how backwards the cis world is, even in 2018.
If a cis-woman gets a boob job, guys are all okay with it.
What does gender at birth have to do with anything.

https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

Where do you stand?

Wanted to contribute to the thread but am not certain exactly what it’s about. People have reasons for what they do and who they connect with. I’m not sure I needed a study to tell me that.

Could I ask what the study result would have needed to look like to be not so “infuriating?”

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

What's the over under on how long it will be before Sumac comes out?

I'm told it's illegal to be queer in Russia, in some instances punishable by death.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

What's the over under on how long it will be before Sumac comes out?

Can you contribute something useful except pitiful provocations?

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I'm told it's illegal to be queer in Russia, in some instances punishable by death.

As far as Russian laws go, no, being Gay is not a crime in Russia. Not officially.
Though in some regions you are indeed can be killed for that. Naturally official government will deny everything.

Though, it has nothing to do with me. I am supporting rights of Lesbians and Gays and not exactly against transsexuals, as long as they don't try to push their insanity to usurp rights of women and indoctrinate children with their crazy ****.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Though, it has nothing to do with me. I am supporting rights of Lesbians and Gays and not exactly against transsexuals, as long as they don't try to push their insanity to usurp rights of women and indoctrinate children with their crazy ****.

Quoting for the mods to see exactly what kind if nonsense this member spews.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I'm told it's illegal to be queer in Russia, in some instances punishable by death.

Must be where all the animosity stems from. Maybe they'll find the strength to live their best life?

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

Quoting for the mods to see exactly what kind if nonsense this member spews.

It's can be nonsense only for a member of transcult, which automatically means that you are self-entitled narcissist who doesn't give a **** about women and kids and wants to validate his own feefees at the expense of health and safety of everyone else.
Which is usually a sign of hateful male misogynist.

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

Must be where all the animosity stems from. Maybe they'll find the strength to live their best life?

Try harder.
Or better do something more productive with your life.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Originally Posted by Sumac

It's can be nonsense only for a member of transcult, which automatically means that you are self-entitled narcissist who doesn't give a **** about women and kids and wants to validate his own feefees at the expense of health and safety of everyone else.
Which is usually a sign of hateful male misogynist.


Try harder.
Or better do something more productive with your life.

That wasn't very lady like. I'm appalled.

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Sumac

and not exactly against transsexuals, as long as they don't try to push their insanity to usurp rights of women

Explain that more...?

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but I really don't see how trans people pose any threat of usurping women's rights.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Explain that more...?

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but I really don't see how trans people pose any threat of usurping women's rights.

Nobody does. Only a mentally ill person would draw that kind of conclusion.
You'd have to be crazy to talk that way.

[Sumac]

Originally Posted by IndigoErth

Explain that more...?

Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but I really don't see how trans people pose any threat of usurping women's rights.

Simple. I will try to keep emotions out of it and follow facts, as unpleasant for some people as they might be.

Some companies are opting from using the word "women", substituting it for "menstruators" and other pretty rather insulting things, like "pregnant people" or "lactating parents". Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

While by themselves, those incidents might look like an anecdotal overreaching, however, together with transcult rhetoric it paints a rather questionable picture. Words pertaining to women and processes linked to their biology as slowly phased out for fear of insulting tiny percent of population. And interestingly enough, most of those people are males.

In some countries, males can get access to the female prisons, shelters, crisis centers, that help women who have suffered from male abuse and rape. It's already led to some incidents. The problem is that not only post-operational men can get into them, but new laws basically allow anyone who identify themselves as a woman to get inside. I think we can agree that this is problematic, as "progressives" like to say.
Link
Link
Link
Link

Attempts of women to fight for their rights and respectfully discuss issues which are directly and inherently related to them, are met with hysterical overreaction from transcult and their allies. Including censorship, death and rape threats, bullying and even physical violence.
Link

There is also increasingly toxic and violent rhetoric, aimed, primarily at Lesbians (I wonder why?) because they are refusing to see transwomen (including those who have not transitioned nor have intend to) as viable sexual partners. Those transactivists, some of them identifying themselves as women, use traditional "female" insults ("choke on my dick") and rape threats. Though, it seems also happens with Gay men as well.
Link
Link
Link

And there is an outright threat to the female sports, since according to new rules males, who "pass enough" can challenge female athletes at some events. Naturally those male athletes still has an inherent advantage due to their biology, but apparently their feelings are more important than rights of women for fair play or their efforts.
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

This also goes for politics and other accomplishments of women, usurped by men.

Once again, by themselves those might look like an unconnected incidents, however, when put together they show rather disturbing picture, where transactivists or rather so called "progressives" supporting them believe that their rights should be more important than rights of others: women, kids, Lesbians, Gays, anyone.

Naturally a lot of women are disturbed about this, however, as I said, their voices are silenced or they are threatened. Whether all of this are valid reasons for concern or not, I leave it up to you to decide.

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

Nobody does. Only a mentally ill person would draw that kind of conclusion.
You'd have to be crazy to talk that way.

More crazy than thinking that you are born in the "wrong body"?
I don't think so, man.

Originally Posted by Leonardo_thebest

That wasn't very lady like. I'm appalled.

Ah, sexist insult. As expected.
How soon you tell me to "choke on your wonderful female dick"?

Also, I wonder about something: being transexual (the one on hormones and operations) is quite hard - aside from obvious mental problems related to your own body and self-image, being transexual also means lack of proper sexual intercourses, due to fake sexual organs, lack of orgasms and complete sterility. So, I wonder, why some people want to push this life on as many people as possible?

I mean, ill people should get their treatment, no questions. But what I see is a sickness becoming a trend, a fad. Easily manipulated people, including autists, kids, as well as people with various psychological traumas, are choosing transitioning, even though their problems are completely unrelated to the sexual dysphoria.
And all this while being encouraged to do so by people who are actually "supposedly" suffering from this horrible condition. It doesn't make sense.

It's like if someone with AIDS would've encourage others to get this illness, knowing full well, what kind of ramifications it has on their life.

It's more like "transexualism" has become more of political movement, where people spearheading it (not necessarily transexuals themselves, but politicians and various crazy radicals) need more "canon fodder" to push their "progressive values", which at this point more and more reminds me of fascist dictatorship, where people are punished for "wrong think", censorship is in abundance and unquestionable obedience of "opinion leaders" is the only right way to progress.

Seeing medical condition being forcefully pushed on others, especially kids, who have no experience and full awareness of themselves, is bound to rise some questions. And I find rather depressing and appalling that some people think what's going on is fine course of events.

And as I've said, I have experience with both dictatorship and insanity and I can say for sure, what I observer reminds me of combination of both.

But apparently my personal experiences are irrelevant because I dare to deny FEELINGS and as "progressive" movement tells us, feelings are more important than logic or truth. Or safety and health of people.

[Leonardo_thebest]

Look lady, you need to examen what your problem is. Honestly. The cray amount of rage you have is, well, it can't be healthy. Did a trans person touch in the bad place when you were a kid? are you questioning your sexual identity? Do penises frighten you? What is it? Why are you so wrapped up in this, when it really doesn't affect you at all?

Trans woman identifies as a woman, and is identified as a woman - this action has ZERO to do with you. A Trans man and a straight woman have a one night stand, again, zero to do with you. A trans man counsels a child on their identity. THIS IS NOT your problem.

Your problem, it seems is that you are vocal about what others are doing with their life.

You, I don't give a damn who you're sleeping with, or not sleeping with. My guess is, that would be nobody, seeing how revolting you are here - i can't imagine anyone wanting to touch you irl. But that's really not the point.

Or is it? Are you so opposed to the trans community because they're getting action and you're not?

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Originally Posted by Sumac

Except existence of women and men are fundamental part of the human species and mammals in general. And so far most mammals have not evolved out of that. Yes, there are some rare mutations, but generally there are still only female and male species.

Appealing to evolution is ridiculous: evolution has created division for female and male species in the first place. It existed since simple mononuclear organisms.

Believing that humanity might evolve out of that division, especially with no outside hostile conditions present, especially since humanity very successfully procreates with females and males and ESPECIALLY given that humans are very complex organisms, which can't significantly evolve and change in a span of a hundred years, makes all this "evolution" talk absolutely ridiculous and unscientific, unless one believes in some kind of magic.

Bottom line: humans won't evolve out of females and males in the next hundred years or most likely ever. Outside of wishful thinking of some mentally unstable people, there is no way it can naturally happen, since most people don't have desire to butcher themselves and alter their bodies with hormones and other crap, and since there are no outside factors pressuring humanity as a species to make such significant evolutionary change.

When 99% of species are genetically normal, it means that this is normal for those species. So, presence of female species with clearly defined female traits and presence of male species with clearly defined male traits are normal for humanity. Various mutations shouldn't be taking into account, since mutations do happen in every species and they are not indicative of what species normally are.
At least that's how logic works on that matter. Not sure what about ideology and "magics".

1984 in a nutshell.
Peace is war, war is peace, men are women, women are men.

It's almost like this change was done to further validate delusions of mentally sick people that they are of sex, they are not.

Wow. Way to completely miss the point. AGAIN. Just because something is the "normal/status quo" of a given species does NOT make binary gender as the only valid or real options. Nature is quirky in the extreme- we have males with an extra X chromosome, females who have a Y, some even have doubles!, and so on. And that is just a small portion of the permutations of gender that exist in humans, to say nothing of other species. Are male and female the majority? Yes, of course they are. Are they the ONLY two options? Hardly. Genetics is a fascinating subject, and even a casual perusal of the data at hand shows that your version of reality is severely limited in understanding of the subject. Try reading some actual science book once in a while, instead of rhetoric filled websites that only reinforce a very closed view of what gender entails.

Further, it has been PROVEN by numerous studies that the brains of men and women are wired differently on a very fundamental level, and not only that, but that trans people almost overwhelmingly have brains wired like the gender they identify as! You want to refute scientific studies that say trans people actually ARE their professed gebder, in mental configuration, if not in genital construction? Seems you have ignored an entire array of logical facts. Because they dispute your views.

Once again, rather than viewing evidence with an open mind, here we see nothing but rants against "liberal agenda". No one is forcing you or anyone else to give up their own gender identity, although I do feel that parents automatically thinking a child is misidentifying simply because they don't fit established gender-role "norms" is short-sighted at best and certainly harmful at worst. But being an idiot is not a crime, just grounds for possible future nomination for a Darwin award.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I would say some might be a better word to use in this instance than most, and that not all trans people want a straight partner.

In the sex work industry trans women who have not chosen to undergo bottom gender confirmation surgery are quite popular with straight cis men, according to Dan Savage.

But I don't have peer-reviewed dataset to support that assumption.
Only anecdotal evidence.

Like, does anyone else have the experience of straight dudes being way more fascinated by dick, then straight women are by vulvas?

Our closest living genetic relative is the bonobo chimpanzee, who will literally engage in sexual intercourse with pretty much anything. And they will have sex outside of a specified breeding season, basically they use it as a form of group cohesion, and for straight-up pleasure. I don't think it's beyond the pale to make the assumption that heterosexual monogamous pair bonding is a relatively new adaptation to our species.

We didn't really need paternity certainty of any sort until after the Advent of agriculture anyway.

What's interesting is that sexually dimorphic body plans don't really exist in cultures that are still predominantly hunter-gatherer. There's also a correlation between penis size and how much bodily autonomy a woman has any given culture.

That's not really relevant to the conversation at hand, I just think it's pretty interesting.
That evolutionarily speaking, survival of the just good enough continues even when we seemingly are not making choices based on survival.

One of the main problems with understanding human biology is that we only seen to study pathology.
There's a lot of use of normal in this thread, and how 99% of people are normal. statistically speaking 99% of a thing is something that falls within two standard deviations away from the average. if all of our understanding of the human genome and human physiology comes not from normative studies, but only from pathological ones, we have no idea where that mean is. We have no idea where the center of that normal distribution Parabola sits.

We have no idea what normal is, and won't when our data set includes people having medical problems.

Monogamy might not be normal for us, in a non coercive environment.
X and Y might not be normal predictors of genetic male or female, because the average person who isn't pathological for something gets tested to see if those chromosomes exist in agreement with their secondary sexual characteristics.

See, you get it! Those were in fact some of the very things I was considering as hard data, as even a casual glance across the animal kingdom reveals a shocking amount of diversity in gender roles and preferences both sexually and socially. Dolphin males will mate with anything they can, including each other, and there are clearly homosexual relationships across multiple species, like- oh, say- penguins and chimps. And various forms of hermaphrodism in almost EVERY species from worms to fish and yes, mammals. You get that. But of course, those species- aren't US, so maybe they're irrelavent, at least to some people's views.

[plastroncafe]

I just can't really fathom the idea that anyone who has an understanding of biology, or claims to at very least, expects nature to have a simple on-off switch.

There is not a single thing about biology that is clean or neat. In fact evolution damn near requires Gray.

you can't have survival of the just good enough if you don't have variation to choose from period and a strict male-female binary is not variation, it's a toggle.

And that doesn't even get into the foolish notion that Evolution has a directionality to it, it doesn't.
More evolved merely means more adapted to a single environmental circumstance.

you want to know what a highly evolved plant looks like? It's the banana. so highly of all of it I can't even reproduce on its own.

or the panda bear, which is so highly evolved that it has one environment in which I can live, and if you divorce it from that environment you have to teach it how to mate because it doesn't even have that instinct anymore.

[Andrew NDB]

[Machias Banshee]

This thread is closed for review.