"Trans girl" sweeps track meet, brags about it

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

And you aren't?

Not at all.

[ToTheNines]

Thought I was on your ignore list.

[mrmaczaps]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

Thought I was on your ignore list.

Apparently theres a feature that allows people to see whatever someone on their block list posts.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by mrmaczaps

But she's actually, really a dude. He can call himself a girl, sit to pee and eventually mutilate himself but he will in fact, always be a male. All he really is is delusional.

Could you define male for us please?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Could you define male for us please?

A human born with a p*nis.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

A human born with a p*nis.

So...is someone who has had their penis removed for any reason no longer male?
Is it just the penis? Or penis and testicles?
What if they were born with both a vulva and a penis?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

So...is someone who has had their penis removed for any reason no longer male?

Nope. They're still male as they were born that way.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Nope. They're still male as they were born that way.

Interesting.
That the entire basis for your gender is a word you can't type without self censoring.

Okay, that covers the phenotype, but what about the genotype.
What if a person is genetically born XY, but phenotypically presents with a vulva.
Or if another person is genetically XX, but phenotypically presents with a penis.
Or again, is phenotypically both by having a penis and a vulva.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

I've read a little bit about the condition where people are rarely born with both organs but it also said that one is typically dominant over the other. For e.g. A person with both organs who can get someone else pregnant but can't get pregnant themselves. In that case, they'd be considered male.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I've read a little bit about the condition where people are rarely born with both organs but it also said that one is typically dominant over the other. For e.g. A person with both organs who can get someone else pregnant but can't get pregnant themselves. In that case, they'd be considered male.

So it's not just a penis, but an intact one with gonads that produce functional gametes post puberty.

So...someone born sterile, but with a penis, isn't a male because they can't produce offspring?
With that in mind, is maleness not determined until such time as puberty has been completed?

I mean, otherwise, how would we know if they're destined to shoot nothing but blanks?
And if they do shoot nothing but blanks, does that make them something else?
Or is female just anything that doesn't have functioning intact male genitalia?

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

So it's not just a penis, but an intact one with gonads that produce functional gametes post puberty.

So...someone born sterile, but with a penis, isn't a male because they can't produce offspring?
With that in mind, is maleness not determined until such time as puberty has been completed?

I mean, otherwise, how would we know if they're destined to shoot nothing but blanks?
And if they do shoot nothing but blanks, does that make them something else?
Or is female just anything that doesn't have functioning intact male genitalia?

I never said has to be fertile at a later age. Just has to be born with a certain organ to be considered either sex. And in the extremely rare case of a person having both organs, one is typically dominant over the other which determines what the person's sex was meant to be.

Even if someone is sterile, their body is still designed with a blueprint for working a certain way which allows anyone to identify whether they're male or female.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I never said has to be fertile at a later age. Just has to be born with a certain organ to be considered either sex. And in the extremely rare case of a person having both organs, one is typically dominant over the other which determines what the person's sex was meant to be.

Even if someone is sterile, their body is still designed with a blueprint for working a certain way which allows anyone to identify whether they're male or female.

You didn't say it, but you heavily implied it when you equated the dominance of a particular set of organs with their ability to function.

And if we're going to go the route of saying the human body has a specific design of function, then isn't the intersex person exactly as they should be?

Neither 100% male nor 100% female.

Also, you mention the blueprint, but continually evade my question of geneotype over phenotype.
What are our genes if not the blue print of our "design".

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

And if we're going to go the route of saying the human body has a specific design of function, then isn't the intersex person exactly as they should be?

Neither 100% male nor 100% female.

Also, you mention the blueprint, but continually evade my question of geneotype over phenotype.
What are our genes if not the blue print of our "design".

I don't understand what you mean by your comment on intersex design of function, sorry. Please elaborate for me.

in cases of genotype vs phenotype, the person's phenotype is more important in determining whether they are male or female.

As I said before, the criteria is being born with a certain organ, and a even a person with XX male syndrome for e.g. Is still born a male and not a female. That's why he is called an "XX male".

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

I don't understand what you mean by your comment on intersex design of function, sorry. Please elaborate for me.

in cases of genotype vs phenotype, the person's phenotype is more important in determining whether they are male or female.

As I said before, the criteria is being born with a certain organ, and a even a person with XX male syndrome for e.g. Is still born a male and not a female. That's why he is called an "XX male".

You said:

And in the extremely rare case of a person having both organs, one is typically dominant over the other which determines what the person's sex was meant to be.

You assert that our primary sexual characteristics denote our sex, and that this phenotype is by "design," but then imply that the inherent design of intersex people is somehow...wrong and in need of further determination of what was "meant."
Men have a penis, women have a vulva, and intersex people...require a flag on the play.

So...you're perfectly fine with a genetic female being considered a male, because they have a penis.

And perfectly fine with a genetic male being considered a female, because they have a vulva.

[FredWolfLeonardo]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

You assert that our primary sexual characteristics denote our sex, and that this phenotype is by "design," but then imply that the inherent design of intersex people is somehow...wrong and in need of further determination of what was "meant."
Men have a penis, women have a vulva, and intersex people...require a flag on the play.

Yes, that's my view. I think the design of having two reproductive organs on the same person is not normal and is in need of further determination.

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

So...you're perfectly fine with a genetic female being considered a male, because they have a penis.

And perfectly fine with a genetic male being considered a female, because they have a vulva.

I consider the former to be a male, and the latter to be a female, not the other way around.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by FredWolfLeonardo

Yes, that's my view. I think the design of having two reproductive organs on the same person is not normal and is in need of further determination.

So then...the design in question isn't an intelligent one.
Interesting.

Thanks for your candor.

[Refractive Reflections]

So an individual says that they're trapped in the wrong body, and they need to physically change themselves (through extensive surgery and/or hormones) because they identify differently than the body they currently have.

Why is this considered socially acceptable when it comes to transgenderism, but individuals are considered mentally ill if they are anorexic or have "body dysmorphic disorder" (i.e. Michael Jackson)? Is this not selective bigotry then?

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections

So an individual says that they're trapped in the wrong body, and they need to physically change themselves (through extensive surgery and/or hormones) because they identify differently than the body they currently have.

Why is this considered socially acceptable when it comes to transgenderism, but individuals are considered mentally ill if they are anorexic or have "body dysmorphic disorder" (i.e. Michael Jackson)? Is this not selective bigotry then?

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3385287

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

https://www.healthyplace.com/ocd-rel...der-bdd-dsm-5/

May find more information after reading the above 3 articles.

[Refractive Reflections]

Originally Posted by TurtleWA

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3385287

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chica...story,amp.html

https://www.healthyplace.com/ocd-rel...der-bdd-dsm-5/

May find more information after reading the above 3 articles.

So I read through the articles...
https://www.healthyplace.com/ocd-rel...der-bdd-dsm-5/

This mental illness stands apart from typical insecurities about appearance in that the person who suffers is obsessed and chronically anxious about the perceived defect to the extent that quality of life is impaired.

One could easily argue that this reasoning could apply to those transgendered, since they see the "perceived defect" as their anatomy and their quality of life is impaired.

Men and women suffer equally from body dysmorphic disorder. They obsess over individual physical features, combinations of features, or even the entire body and appearance. Features such as one's nose, hair, skin, weight or body shape may represent the focus of obsession. Beginning as a nagging insecurity, this illness can lead to compulsive symptoms such as hair plucking, skin picking, excessive grooming, eating disorders, repeated cosmetic surgeries, and varying degrees of clinical depression.

Individuals with BDD typically spend many hours each day attempting to conceal or modify the perceived flaw. They may use excessive makeup or try to use clothing to camouflage the imagined defect. As the insecurity grows, the attempts to hide the flaw can lead to obsessive ritualistic behavior in the preparation for each day. If unchecked, this behavior can create an inability to maintain employment or a social life, which can ultimately lead to the sufferer becoming housebound with anxiety and even attempts at suicide.

This "body dysmorphic disorder example" description is almost paralleling transgenderism here.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...729-story.html

Reed found that many of his interviewees experienced a lot of distress in their lives. Later, using mathematical modeling, he found a good way to predict who was suffering -but the most important determining factor was not being transgender, it was something else.

"We found distress and dysfunction were very powerfully predicted by the experiences of social rejection or violence that people had," he said. "But they were not actually predicted by gender incongruence itself."

Putting aside the strong political activism in the article, this excerpt seems to be the crux of their argument. This becomes a huge slippery slope argument, basically stating "if society accepts how an individual identifies, that individual wouldn't have any distress and dysfunction." It begins to erode gender objectivity, and implicitly bolsters the arguments of those who are transracial, transabled, and dare I say trans-species, to make the same argument that their distress and dysfunction is from society, not by their ______ (gender, race, abled, species) incongruence itself.

As for that HuffPost article, yeah... it's hard to take that site seriously, when they initially didn't have qualms about posting things like this:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/201...se_a_22036640/
http://archive.is/tveBZ
http://archive.is/QHqY4

[TurtleWA]

Originally Posted by Refractive Reflections

So I read through the articles...
https://www.healthyplace.com/ocd-rel...der-bdd-dsm-5/

One could easily argue that this reasoning could apply to those transgendered, since they see the "perceived defect" as their anatomy and their quality of life is impaired.


This "body dysmorphic disorder example" description is almost paralleling transgenderism here.



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/n...729-story.html

Putting aside the strong political activism in the article, this excerpt seems to be the crux of their argument. This becomes a huge slippery slope argument, basically stating "if society accepts how an individual identifies, that individual wouldn't have any distress and dysfunction." It begins to erode gender objectivity, and implicitly bolsters the arguments of those who are transracial, transabled, and dare I say trans-species, to make the same argument that their distress and dysfunction is from society, not by their ______ (gender, race, abled, species) incongruence itself.

As for that HuffPost article, yeah... it's hard to take that site seriously, when they initially didn't have qualms about posting things like this:
https://web-beta.archive.org/web/201...se_a_22036640/
http://archive.is/tveBZ
http://archive.is/QHqY4

Did the articles assist in bringing you any closer to finding answers to your original questions surrounding society, metal illness and bigotry?