Help a conservative understand the lgbt movement >thinks

>>7518013

There is no 'lgbt movement'. There are crazy dykes agitating for revolution, trannies lobbying for more sissy pills and gay men running the government while the bisexuals moan about being hated.

Loads of separate things, one movement it isn't

>>7518013
Why are you making this so hard for us?

>>7518013
There's not really an lgbt movement, just a bunch of people who are in some form of minority that gets picked on that want to allowed their personal freedoms.

File: Genderbread-Person-3.3.jpg (314KB, 1224x792px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1224x792px

>>7518013
>Help a conservative understand the lgbt movement
>>thinks gays should be aloud to do what they want
well, that's something we can work with! thanks for not trumping
>>think they shouldnt be allowed to force religious business owners to service them
are they? source pls
>>think transgenderism is a mental illness
it is not. there are many cultures that include transppl in everyday life and even have words for a "3rd" gender. genderbinarity is a concept of western culture.

(also see the gender bread)
>>thinks there are only 2 genders
what do you say to intersex people? they are real

>>7518078

Do not listen to this person OP. Most homosexuals aren't in denial about gender

>>7518089
>Most homosexuals aren't in denial about gender
Homosexuality does not equal Trans
They are however part of a worldwide discriminated minority.
Bro, get your shit right

>>7518013
>thinks gays should be aloud to do what they want
>think they shouldnt be allowed to force religious business owners to service them
Why do you believe these things? Is there a rationale? Are you familiar with the concept of the veil of ignorance?

>think transgenderism is a mental illness
Why do you think it is a mental illness rather than a physical one given that transsexuality is thought to be caused by exposure to abnormal levels of hormones in the womb?

>thinks there are only 2 genders
What do you think gender is? How does it differ from sex?

>>7518078
>are they? source plshttp
://mobile.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7965/lgbt-groups-plan-attack-religious-freedom-across-amanda-prestigiacomo

>it is not. there are many cultures that include transppl in everyday life and even have words for a "3rd" gender. genderbinarity is a concept of western culture.
dont want to get into a big arguement

>what do you say to intersex people? they are real
was refering to the whole agender, bigender thing as opposed to just genetic mutations

>>7518078

>it is not. there are many cultures that include transppl in everyday life and even have words for a "3rd" gender. genderbinarity is a concept of western culture.

Just because third genders exist in some cultures doesn't mean that they are appropriate to or make sense in the context of our culture. Many such cultures (Native American, Papa New Guinea) consider homosexuals to be of a different gender, yet clearly that would be a complete contradiction of what we think.

It's pretty stupid to argue "muh natives do it" in defence of such a thing, particularly when said natives also tend to believe in voodou and spirits.

>>7518137
>Why do you believe these things? Is there a rationale? Are you familiar with the concept of the veil of ignorance?
Even though I myself am not religious i still believe this is an attack and peoples faith which is protected under the 1st amendment

>>7518166
>particularly when said natives also tend to believe in voodou and spirits.
Not that person but how is that different from believing in God and miracles?

>>7518013
but
theres literally physically more than 2 genders
because you know
intersex and stuff

>>7518078
Transgenderism isn't an illness but dysphoria is pretty clearly a disorder.

>>7518156
>>are they? source plshttp
>://mobile.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-loses-to-gay-demands/
>http://www.dailywire.com/news/7965/lgbt-groups-plan-attack-religious-freedom-across-amanda-prestigiacomo
so you make us all responsible for the actions f few? also: think about what yould happen if some shop owner refused to serve a person because they are black.
>>it is not. there are many cultures that include transppl in everyday life and even have words for a "3rd" gender. genderbinarity is a concept of western culture.
>dont want to get into a big arguement
why are you asking to explain then?
>>what do you say to intersex people? they are real
>was refering to the whole agender, bigender thing as opposed to just genetic mutations
this is part of the gender IDENTITY. that is NOT your biological sex. again
>genderbread
at least make some effort and dont expect us to spoonfeed you everything

>>7518179

Maybe there isn't any difference, so what?

>>7518166
>It's pretty stupid to argue "muh natives do it" in defence of such a thing, particularly when said natives also tend to believe in voodou and spirits.
This just shows that it is possible to live toghether and accept one another as we are
which, you are sadly right, apparently doesent make sense in western culture. but we still can rethink and evolve as a social group. and guess what? we dont even need all the voodoo stuff

>>7518186

Is it that simple? The history of 'intersex' people is largely one of reassignment surgery. Doesn't this suggest that there is no real intersex gender, no legitimate category that they fall into outside of male and female?

>>7518172
A muslim might believe a woman dressed immodestly (i.e. in a Western fashion) violates the basis of his religion and refuse her service.
A jew might believe that charging non-jews interest is just and moral because his religion allows this but charges no interest from fellow jews.
Are they, too, protected by the constitution? How about satanists and pagans of various stripes? Is believing something is moral for a supernatural reason reason enough to protect it?

>>7518201

>we can evolve as a social group by taking cues from people much more primitive than we are

This is a really silly argument. What it is to 'accept one another' is completely bounded by culture, it isn't in itself an argument at all. Some people are pedophiles or lazy fatties but nobody believes we should accommodate and 'accept them as they are'.

>>7518202
Reassignment surgery makes them one of the two genders in the exact same way it makes transsexuals one of the two genders. If you believe SRS turns a woman who was born with a dick into a normal woman then that applies to transwomen too.

If you don't believe that, and I suspect that you don't, then the alternative is that sex is a spectrum between male and female.

>>7518166
>>7518210
What makes the status quo preferable to other systems?

>>7518223

No it isn't, the alternative is non-gender categories that account for these people. For instance, we can acknowledge that transwomen are men who identify as women. That doesn't necessitate a change in the category of woman or the creation of a new gender, although maybe it necessitates the concept of gender identity.

>>7518234

Intellectual modesty. You can prostrate yourself before the wisdom of everybody who has come before you and the prosperous world they have constructed, or you can assume that you know better and that the gender ideologists of today have the foresight and knowledge to successfully retrace a social structure which has existed in our society for thousands of years.

>>7518239
What gender is an XY born with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome? They look like and generally have the body of a woman but are still men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome

What about hermaphrodites of various stripes? Intersexuals with both breasts and penises? People who naturally look like they're one sex but have the genitals of another?

Most people fit the sex dichotomy quite well and sit at its edges. There are plenty who lie somewhere on the spectrum between them. If gender is not a social construct and arises from one's biology then one could reason that for each spot on that spectrum there is a gender. If gender IS a social construct then what sex one is has no impact on what gender they can reasonably identify as; that's just up to what we choose to accept as a society.

>>7518253
But not everyone agrees with you. There are plenty of societies that think differently, and plenty of people in current societies that think differently. Furthermore each new society by definition replaces what has come before it. Slavery was considered acceptable for thousands of years until it wasn't. Monarchs ruled with no input from the people from hundreds of years until they didn't. Women couldn't vote in democracies for decades until they could. There is always a breaking point at which change manifests.

>>7518274

I've no idea what gender that kind of person is, but if they 'have the body of a woman' then that suggests that they are women. I'm not providing a roadmap for whatever particular arrangement of genetics creates a woman, I'm just pointing out that there isn't a direct and unbroken line between genetics and gender.

>Most people fit the sex dichotomy quite well and sit at its edges.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Almost everyone sits quite at home within the gender binary, and those who don't are not typically acknowledged as another legitimate category of being by most people.

I really think you're reaching with this idea that there must be a spectrum of gender. What at all suggests this? We have to concepts of gender, and although some people do not have all the features we associate with them and some people have features of both, so far this has not caused any problems in regard to these categories and has not caused us to re-evaluate them. Clearly this suggests that gender is binary, is not a spectrum.

>>7518288

Um, sure not everyone agrees with me. But insofar as we can talk about western society having a view on this, the view is that gender is binary and it has been pretty consistent for most of history. Gender is, at least in part, a social construct. So what is there to determining how many genders there are other than looking at what people think about that subject? There isn't anything. Maybe that will change, but X group thinks otherwise isn't in itself any argument for that, and intellectual modesty is a case for not fixing what aint broken.

>>7518305
>I've no idea what gender that kind of person is, but if they 'have the body of a woman' then that suggests that they are women
Why are they women but a passing transwoman isn't a woman if both have male chromosomes?

>I'm not providing a roadmap for whatever particular arrangement of genetics creates a woman
You kind of have to if you're making claims about what gender is.

>I'm just pointing out that there isn't a direct and unbroken line between genetics and gender.
Okay, how do you know which gender someone is then? What's the formal definition?

>Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Almost everyone sits quite at home within the gender binary, and those who don't are not typically acknowledged as another legitimate category of being by most people.
Most people are wrong about most things.

>I really think you're reaching with this idea that there must be a spectrum of gender. What at all suggests this?
The argument I've just presented. Either gender is a social construct, wholly or partially, in which case it can be whatever we want it to be, or it isn't in which case it stems from one's sex and genetics. Since there is a clear, observable spectrum of sexes between male and female then why wouldn't gender arise from each of them?

>We have to concepts of gender, and although some people do not have all the features we associate with them and some people have features of both, so far this has not caused any problems in regard to these categories and has not caused us to re-evaluate them
It has, for a very long time. Medical professionals have been grappling with this issue for a very long time. Most people, though, are not educated and have only a superficial understanding of the subject.

>Clearly this suggests that gender is binary, is not a spectrum.
Most people being ignorant about a piece of domain-specific knowledge does not change reality. Reality is not democratic.

>>7518089
Do not listen to this person OP, most homos are raging sjw's

File: 1483561762147.jpg (274KB, 1219x1307px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1219x1307px

Help me understand why I have to let pic related use womens restrooms

>>7518318
Oh, if you accept that gender is a social construct then things are very simple. I, and many others, believe the system IS broken because it makes a substantial part of the population unhappy with no upside. Since gender is a construct the construct can be reformed to accomodate those who feel strangled by it. "This system was put into place a long time ago" does little to improve their lot.

>>7518013
Why do you wanna know about us?

>>7518369

>Why are they women but a passing transwoman isn't a woman if both have male chromosomes?

I'm not sure, I don't think that 'who falls into which gender category' is really a science. Maybe people think that chromosomes are most important and neither of them would. It's just a matter of fact about the way people would or do treat them, there is no truth of the matter beyond that.

>You kind of have to if you're making claims about what gender is.

Why do I? I've argued that gender is (in part at least) socially constructed, I don't see what providing an exhaustive account of what the qualifications are adds to the argument beyond that. I would imagine that there is a lot of flexibility, but like I speculated above I imagine most people think chromosomes are the deal breaker.

>Okay, how do you know which gender someone is then? What's the formal definition?

There is no formal definition. Consider the following: a mammal is a warm-blooded vertebrate distinguished by body hair, live birth and lactation. If a human is born with alopecia, we don't refuse to consider them a mammal. We don't create another category that accounts for degrees of mammalness. We just incorporate them. I suggest it is a similar issue to the gender issue

>Most people are wrong about most things.

Lol. Since we're dealing with a matter of social construction, there isn't really any truth beyond what people think. Sorry 'bout it

>or it isn't in which case it stems from one's sex and genetics.

This dichotomy doesn't exist. Obviously gender 'stems from' biology, I don't suggest that genders are just assigned at random. As I've implied, there is clearly some informal scheme that people use to identify genders, I just don't claim to know the specifics because it is doubtless complicated. That doesn't mean it isn't socially constructed, though. Clearly it is, since societies have existed in which there are more than 2 genders.

>>7518369

>It has, for a very long time. Medical professionals have been grappling with this issue for a very long time. Most people, though, are not educated and have only a superficial understanding of the subject.

That's a problem of medical science and its interaction with gender. It isn't a problem with gender itself. The concept of gender has never collapsed when an XX with a penis came along.

>Most people being ignorant about a piece of domain-specific knowledge does not change reality. Reality is not democratic.

But shared conceptions are democratic, and that's what we're dealing with...

File: 1396554487563.jpg (46KB, 426x373px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 426x373px

>>7518078
>genderbinarity is a concept of western culture.
No "genderbinarity" is a product of evolution.

>>7518393

>Oh, if you accept that gender is a social construct then things are very simple. I, and many others, believe the system IS broken because it makes a substantial part of the population unhappy with no upside. Since gender is a construct the construct can be reformed to accomodate those who feel strangled by it. "This system was put into place a long time ago" does little to improve their lot.

Sure, and that's an argument some people make. I think "some people believe it has impeded their happiness" doesn't stand up to "this notion has been integral to our society for thousands of years".

>>7518013
>alright with gays
Good
>transgender is a mental illness
It sure can be. Just remember that hormones are weird things, and imbalances in the womb can cause some weird shit. Just try not to be an ass and hopefully they'll do the same
>only 2 genders
See above
If you wanna be cool and extend an olive branch advocate pink pistols or something of that nature. #MAGA

>>7518188
>so you make us all responsible for the actions f few?
I suppose that's similar to how 1.5% of whites owned slaves in the US at the peak of slavery, yet all are culpable.

You don't get it both ways, that's called hypocrisy.

>>7518420
>I'm not sure, I don't think that 'who falls into which gender category' is really a science. Maybe people think that chromosomes are most important and neither of them would. It's just a matter of fact about the way people would or do treat them, there is no truth of the matter beyond that.
If the categories are only real insofar that people use them then you've answered your own question: you think there are only two genders in the sense that this is what most people believe, but it is just as true that if a meteor struck everyone who believed this then there would instantly be as many genders as the rest of the people think there are. If this is so arbitrary and unscientific and a great deal of people would be much much happier if you accepted their arbitrary genders why not accommodate them?

Alternatively we could accept that our historical and day-to-day definition of gender is flawed and try to move forward by refining our scientific definition of the term. If we do that see my previous argument.

>
Why do I? I've argued that gender is (in part at least) socially constructed, I don't see what providing an exhaustive account of what the qualifications are adds to the argument beyond that. I would imagine that there is a lot of flexibility, but like I speculated above I imagine most people think chromosomes are the deal breaker.
If someone states that they believe X and ask others to explain to them why they don't believe X one would hope that they would explain why they believe X. If you only believe what you do about genders because most people do.. well, I can give plenty of examples where the most popular definition of a word is not the most useful one, or where the most common conception of an idea is not the most useful one.

>>7518445
>substantial part of the population
>substantial
There is no information you could use to pretend this is true. The words that accurately represent people with gender dysphoria or people uncomfortable with a binary gender system are statistically negligible.

>>7518078
How is transgenderism not a mental illness?
Intersex people also don't invalidate there only being two genders. They are simply a mix of both male and female, not an entirely new gender. They also essentially live and function as either men or women.

>>7518506
How do you reconcile the fact that the looming vast majority of all other organisms on the planet are in a "binary" ecosystem?

Doesn't the fact that evolution designed virtually every other species of complex life in a binary fashion have any impact on what you believe?

>>7518420
>There is no formal definition. Consider the following: a mammal is a warm-blooded vertebrate distinguished by body hair, live birth and lactation. If a human is born with alopecia, we don't refuse to consider them a mammal. We don't create another category that accounts for degrees of mammalness. We just incorporate them. I suggest it is a similar issue to the gender issue.
We decided to classify them as mammals, allowing for variation. There is still a formal system in place. If we want to debate things objectively we need to do the same for gender.

>Lol. Since we're dealing with a matter of social construction, there isn't really any truth beyond what people think. Sorry 'bout it
First thing first, why are formal scientific definitions discarded here but not in other contexts?

Secondly, why is a social construct constructed by N people more valuable or valid than one constructed by N-1 people?

>This dichotomy doesn't exist. Obviously gender 'stems from' biology, I don't suggest that genders are just assigned at random. As I've implied, there is clearly some informal scheme that people use to identify genders, I just don't claim to know the specifics because it is doubtless complicated.
If you believe something is true but you don't know why then it is not possible to usefully criticize your position.

>>7518506

>If this is so arbitrary and unscientific and a great deal of people would be much much happier if you accepted their arbitrary genders why not accommodate them?

Because "arbitrary and unscientific" isn't the same as bad. The gender binary is, as I have pointed out, integral to our society. It serves as diverse roles as structuring the division of labour in society, ensuring the rules of inheritance, and creating the monogamous relationship which has often been a backbone of our social structure. More to the point, these are only the things we know about and we cannot take it for granted that it doesn't do a thousand other important things, like socialise young men into not killing themselves.

The point is that you are giving the gender binary no credit when it is pretty obvious, even from a cursory examination of the difference between societies with a strict binary and those without, that it is a very successful way of organising sex.

>If someone states that they believe X and ask others to explain to them why they don't believe X one would hope that they would explain why they believe X. If you only believe what you do about genders because most people do.. well, I can give plenty of examples where the most popular definition of a word is not the most useful one, or where the most common conception of an idea is not the most useful one.

I don't really see what you don't understand about 'social construct'? There isn't a truth about what gender is beyond what people think it is. There isn't a point of reference about which we can be wrong. People just identify genders, they don't do so correctly or incorrectly.

This is an impossible conversation. As are mos with this sort of person.

All conventions of logic are thrown out because of "feelings" and objective discourse is lost as a result.

It's the 2000s. Feelings > Logic

We're well on our way to reaping the rewards of this.

>>7518445
So was slavery. There is no innate value to tradition.

>>7518508
Were they negligible no one would pay any heed to them. This is only an issue because enough people like this exist to make it an issue.

>>7518509
Why do you think it is a mental illness rather than a physical one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4987404/

>The review of the available data seems to support two existing hypotheses: (1) a brain-restricted intersexuality in homosexual MtFs and FtMs and (2) Blanchard’s insight on the existence of two brain phenotypes that differentiate “homosexual” and “nonhomosexual” MtFs.

Are intersexuals mentally ill?

>>7518521
>How do you reconcile the fact that the looming vast majority of all other organisms on the planet are in a "binary" ecosystem?
Intersexuality is not specific to humans.

>Doesn't the fact that evolution designed virtually every other species of complex life in a binary fashion have any impact on what you believe?
Evolution designed nothing. It is not conscious. Things unfolded as they did because the dice fell where they did.

>>7518557

>If you believe something is true but you don't know why then it is not possible to usefully criticize your position.

This is just a misrepresentation of what I've said. I claim that gender is socially constructed, I just also don't claim to know exhaustively in what ways it is. That hasn't been relevant to the conversation at any point, because all we've been discussing is what the merits of socially constructed gender is.

>First thing first, why are formal scientific definitions discarded here but not in other contexts?

Formal scientific definitions are scientific constructions, and can include gender, but mostly the idea of gender is used in a way defined popularly and not medically or scientifically. You should know why that is, since you've been so keen to point out the problems with medically identifying gender. There's just no reason to talk about the medical/scientific definition of gender when that is an academic interpretation of the popular definition, which is the core of our debate.

>Secondly, why is a social construct constructed by N people more valuable or valid than one constructed by N-1 people?

I don't think that it is. I think that we should be intellectually modest, and not attempt to redesign gender in our society based on the belief that we fully understand the binary's merits and failings - because we surely do not. This encourages me to defend the gender binary against other conceptions, it isn't saying that the gender binary is always or generally superior though. I do think you can make an argument for that (and I have above), but I'd rather just be modest

>>7518557


>We decided to classify them as mammals, allowing for variation. There is still a formal system in place. If we want to debate things objectively we need to do the same for gender.

Yes there is. And scientists decide a formal system for classifying intersex people, and ordinary people decide an informal system for classifying them. If you want to debate the content of that then, as I acknowledged, you have to investigate what the definition is first. But as I've said repeatedly it isn't a matter of true or false, so there isn't much point trying to argue that people are wrongly assigning genders or whatever.

>>7518614

>So was slavery. There is no innate value to tradition.

I never said there was innate value to tradition. I said we should generally stick with tradition because we should be intellectually modest. In case you hadn't noticed, slavery collapsed, and I don't support resurrected traditions which have naturally declined.

I never got the whole "having to bake wedding cakes is an assault on my religious views" when you're just supposed to bake a cake.
That's called seperating your public and private lives (that thing that gays are expected to do everyday, lest they accidentally rub their sexuality in someone's face)

Sure the whole "muh religion" card can be played, but then the same standards will apply to religious people, eg one can refuse service to them based on religious views.
Now watch how that mere suggestion is a million bridges too far and is considered such a bone breaking step on their poor sensitive toes that it'll be called discrimination.

After all, it's only hypocrisy if others do it.

>>7518614
>Were they negligible no one would pay any heed to them. This is only an issue because enough people like this exist to make it an issue.
It's a mental health issue. The ones with these problems are very very vocal. Take you for example.

I'm sure you've heard the addage that 1% of people cause 75% of the problem, this applies nicely to the whole "gender debate". It's a non issue for the vast majority of people, but its a constant bombardment from the tiny minority.

This of course ignores the fact that you get all your information from tumblr and 4chan, and have yet to realize that most people don't really care about either.

>>7518573
>Because "arbitrary and unscientific" isn't the same as bad. The gender binary is, as I have pointed out, integral to our society. It serves as diverse roles as structuring the division of labour in society, ensuring the rules of inheritance, and creating the monogamous relationship which has often been a backbone of our social structure. More to the point, these are only the things we know about and we cannot take it for granted that it doesn't do a thousand other important things, like socialise young men into not killing themselves.
What I and others such as myself believe is that we can construct a superior alternative that both accomodates people who don't fit into the present system as well as makes society as a whole more prosperous. To some degree this happens all the time as gender roles shift all the time. The role of women today is very different from what it was 20, 40, and 80 years ago and this has benefited society as a whole.

>I don't really see what you don't understand about 'social construct'? There isn't a truth about what gender is beyond what people think it is. There isn't a point of reference about which we can be wrong. People just identify genders, they don't do so correctly or incorrectly.
Then what you've meant to say is "I think a system with two genders is optimal" rather than "I think there are two genders" since the second statement makes no logical sense. How can there be a set amount of genders if, for every person, there are as many genders as they can identify according to their definition? In the context you propose gender does not refer to any concrete thing of which there might be X of.

>>7518614
>Intersexuality is not specific to humans.
I would love to see any factual evidence here. I could also say unicorns exist with as much emphasis and I doubt you'd take my word for it.

You also failed to even understand the question. Nowhere did it read "only humans do this!" I'd challenge you to read it again and try to actually answer it instead of knee jerk reacting to what you assume it said.

>>7518649
>What I and others such as myself believe is that we can construct a superior alternative that both accomodates people who don't fit into the present system as well as makes society as a whole more prosperous. To some degree this happens all the time as gender roles shift all the time. The role of women today is very different from what it was 20, 40, and 80 years ago and this has benefited society as a whole.
Needless complication. You and "others such as yourself" are on the periphery of society because you're a noisy minority. There are no advantages to your stance, other than the ones you claim but can't substantiate. Society will not benefit from making you the norm. What you really deserve is indifference. It's what all people deserve, the right to go about their lives without anyone else caring. The fact that you demand more is why you're facing backlash.

>>7518614
>Why do you think it is a mental illness rather than a physical one?
>Are intersex mentally ill?
There is an argument to be made that transgederism is a mental illness. The same can't be said for intersex individuals who actually have physical anomalies not only of the brain but the sex organs and chromosomes too.
Transgender people on the other hand only have differences in the brain structure. The same can be said for psychopaths, schizophrenics, pedophiles, etc.
Do you agree those three I have just listed are mental illness?

>>7518649

>What I and others such as myself believe is that we can construct a superior alternative that both accomodates people who don't fit into the present system as well as makes society as a whole more prosperous. To some degree this happens all the time as gender roles shift all the time. The role of women today is very different from what it was 20, 40, and 80 years ago and this has benefited society as a whole.

This argument makes a number of mistakes. First of all, it neglects that the changes of the last 50 years have been organic and have not been by any particular design. Necessarily, in arguing that you can imagine a better gender system you are supposing that your intellectual constructions are fit to replace the complex web of social relations that make up gender in the real world. An organic change which is brought from activists interacting with the status quo doesn't face this problem, because their ideas are not fully realised and therefore their simplicity does not (completely) burn away the rich tapestry of gender as it originally existed. If they (or you) did manage to fully implement their designs, they'd find that they were woefully inadequate to the point o being completely unworkable. The only way you can defend your argument on this grounds is by recognition that it can never be fully implemented.

Secondly, you are assuming that the changes of the last 50 years in gender have been good. The male suicide rate says different honey

>>7518649

>Then what you've meant to say is "I think a system with two genders is optimal" rather than "I think there are two genders" since the second statement makes no logical sense. How can there be a set amount of genders if, for every person, there are as many genders as they can identify according to their definition? In the context you propose gender does not refer to any concrete thing of which there might be X of.

Saying 'gender is socially constructed' is not saying "there is no set amount of genders, for every person there as many genders as they want". What is hard to understand about that? A social construction is a cultural fact that does not exist as the preference of one individual but as a relationship between a substantial group of people and the world. This is a kind of fact, just in the way that whether someone has a Y chromosome or not is a fact.

>>7518089
>Do not listen to this person OP. Most homosexuals aren't in denial about gender

Not OP but i have to ask, why are gay men so weird, i mean, i know there are normal ones and they are fine i call those (gays) but you know, the faggots right, they dress like retards, they are obnoxious as fuck they speak like fucking retards and they are obsessed with big dicks and big dildos (i dont really care but it seems like there is some sort of pattern.)
,

>>7518615
>This is just a misrepresentation of what I've said. I claim that gender is socially constructed, I just also don't claim to know exhaustively in what ways it is. That hasn't been relevant to the conversation at any point, because all we've been discussing is what the merits of socially constructed gender is.
When I see a statement of the form "There are X Ys" I presume that you're trying to argue against all positions that state "there are !X Ys". If all you were saying is "I prefer systems with X Ys" then that's different.

>Formal scientific definitions are scientific constructions, and can include gender, but mostly the idea of gender is used in a way defined popularly and not medically or scientifically. You should know why that is, since you've been so keen to point out the problems with medically identifying gender. There's just no reason to talk about the medical/scientific definition of gender when that is an academic interpretation of the popular definition, which is the core of our debate.
Then we've moved from a debate about what Is to what Ought be. You cannot skip from one to the other, and Oughts are largely arbitrary and based on the values one has come to hold by chance. I'm a humanist so I value the well-being of transsexuals. I'm an atheist so I don't value people being able to hold on to religious supersitions. Is there really much to debate on this front? Could I say something to convince you or you me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

>Intellectual Modesty
Progress has largely been made by relentlessly questioning the systems that have been handed to us by our ancestors and going "wait, I think I can do this better..", with occasional incrementalism. Every time science gets upturned or we find a better way to build something we have built before is because someone WASN'T "modest".

>>7518078
>Clothes do not have gender
>Gender is the way you present yourself through actions, CLOTHES, demeanor...

Fucking pick one

>>7518700
It's a hobby, in a reductive sense. They've built their entire identity around being gay, and without that as their topic, they are literally nobody.

It's a similar thing to "gamers". I love video games, and play a shit ton of them, but when people ask me about myself, I don't say I LOVE GAMES.

There is a difference between being something, and being ONLY that thing.

>>7518711

>When I see a statement of the form "There are X Ys" I presume that you're trying to argue against all positions that state "there are !X Ys". If all you were saying is "I prefer systems with X Ys" then that's different.

You have lost me here, what are you objecting to? For the most part I have just been arguing that the gender binary exists and no other concept of gender predominates in the west. I have also argued that this is probably a good thing.

>Then we've moved from a debate about what Is to what Ought be. You cannot skip from one to the other, and Oughts are largely arbitrary and based on the values one has come to hold by chance. I'm a humanist so I value the well-being of transsexuals. I'm an atheist so I don't value people being able to hold on to religious supersitions. Is there really much to debate on this front? Could I say something to convince you or you me?

When did we move to what the definition ought to be? I've only been arguing about what gender is, and that it is popularly defined not medically defined.

I understand the is/ought problem, I don't think you do since it is completely unrelated to this topic.

>Progress has largely been made by relentlessly questioning the systems that have been handed to us by our ancestors and going "wait, I think I can do this better..", with occasional incrementalism. Every time science gets upturned or we find a better way to build something we have built before is because someone WASN'T "modest".

Yes, thank god Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler had the tenacity to question the tyrannical systems that we once had in place.

>>7518711
I suppose the irony of your argument about upturning science is totally lost on you.

>>7518013
>>think they shouldnt be allowed to force religious business owners to service them
The problem with this is that it gives precedence to denying anyone you don't like service on religious grounds. Churches can do it because they aren't a business that deals with the public at large unlike a business which does.
>Won't serve Muslims because Christian
>Won't serve Catholics because protestant
>Won't serve Jews because Muslim
They opened a business in a regulated market and in general it should be business first, bigotry second.

>>think transgenderism is a mental illness
Whether or not it is a mental illness is up in the air depending on perspective but this, in of itself, shouldn't be grounds for any kind of discrimination or hate. Are you gonna hate on someone for being depressive because they have bi-polar?

>>thinks there are only 2 genders
Bing

>>7518629
>I never said there was innate value to tradition. I said we should generally stick with tradition because we should be intellectually modest. In case you hadn't noticed, slavery collapsed, and I don't support resurrected traditions which have naturally declined.
Slavery collapsed because there were "immodest" people who said "enough!".

>>7518644
You're literally not neglecting them.

>>7518651
>I would love to see any factual evidence here.
For the existence of interSEX animals? Check the first page of google. This is not disputed by anyone. The most Christian veterinarian will tell you as much.

>You also failed to even understand the question.
Try actually asking one. Intersexuality existing is enough. Animals are generally not clever enough for social constructs such as gender as opposed to sex.

>>7518661
Nor can you prove that the status quo is superior, which leaves us where we started. You'll try to convince people your idea is right and we'll do the same. Someone will succeed over the long run.

>>7518666
Sure, their brains are abnormal, and the abnormality is that they are more similar to that of the other sex. If you don't consider individuals with brains of the other sex to be mentally ill then why do so here?

>Do you agree those three I have just listed are mental illness?
Primarily because none of these qualities are nigh-universal to one of the sexes.

>>7518680
>First of all, it neglects that the changes of the last 50 years have been organic and have not been by any particular design
Civil rights movements are anything but organic.. but if they are then the changes we are pushing must also count.

>Necessarily, in arguing that you can imagine a better gender system you are supposing that your intellectual constructions are fit to replace the complex web of social relations that make up gender in the real world.
Why not? We did it before.

I'm a tranny and I agree with all of that

>>7518013
None of the LGBT "movement" has anything to do with LGBT people. They're just exploited by a certain political group to destroy meaning.

>>7518797

>Why not? We did it before.

You should re-read my post and reply again. No we did not 'do it before'. Nobody has ever redesigned an entire social system by themselves, yet for someone like you to have the audacity to say "hurr obviously gender is bad" clearly presupposes that you have the wisdom and knowledge to know that it can be done. You don't have that knowledge

>>7518013
>>think they shouldnt be allowed to force religious business owners to service them
Religion shouldn't come into it. If the right to deny service exists, it comes from the freedom of association, not from any notional "right" to have one's religious sensibilities catered to. If it's okay for religious business owners to deny service to gays, then anyone should be allowed to deny service to anyone.

>>7518089
>wingnutdaily
lel

>>7518202
That only makes sense if you use the radfem definition of gender, i.e. that it's a social construct. And yeah, in terms of social norms at least, the predominant Western first-world culture doesn't accept the idea of there being genders outside of male and female. However, if you look at the physical reality of nature, trying not to apply any cultural values to it, what you see is that most people fall somewhere in the category of male or female, while there are also a few that don't really fit in either group.

>>7518210
Defining cultures as "primitive" and "advanced" as if it's a single linear scale isn't really meaningful. Most people who use terminology like that are judging other societies by the standards of their own culture, rather than considering that reality isn't about "advanced" and "primitive" cultures so much as cultures that formed in response to different forces.

>>7518253
Why do you assume that everybody who has come before you has wisdom? All we knows is that their ideas were popular and CONSIDERED to have merit, not that those ideas actually DO have merit.

>>7518392
Because someone who's more of a woman than a man clearly doesn't belong in the men's bathroom, and it would be needlessly expensive to create special tranny bathrooms.

>>7518438
Evolution does not create social norms.

>>7518680
> An organic change which is brought from activists interacting with the status quo doesn't face this problem, because their ideas are not fully realised and therefore their simplicity does not (completely) burn away the rich tapestry of gender as it originally existed.
What are we but "activists interacting with the status quo"?

>If they (or you) did manage to fully implement their designs, they'd find that they were woefully inadequate to the point o being completely unworkable.
I don't see this being the case, as it has not been the case in every step those preceding us have taken in shifting gender roles until now and we're not doing much that is fundamentally different.

>Secondly, you are assuming that the changes of the last 50 years in gender have been good. The male suicide rate says different honey
Women are also human, and their lot has been improved a great deal.

>>7518692
What prevents two people from constructing another notion of gender and reject yours? What if SPOILER various groups have already done just that? Are theirs less "factual"?

>a substantial group
Why does it have to be substantial? Is a construct made between two people not a construct while they're a minority, but suddenly is a construct if everyone else perish in some massive extinction event?

>You have lost me here, what are you objecting to? For the most part I have just been arguing that the gender binary exists and no other concept of gender predominates in the west. I have also argued that this is probably a good thing.
Saying "I think there's an elephant on the roof" doesn't imply "I think there should be an elephant on the roof and most people agree with me". Prescriptive vs Descriptive.

>When did we move to what the definition ought to be? I've only been arguing about what gender is, and that it is popularly defined not medically defined.
The most popular definition is not what gender is - it is merely the most popular definition of what gender is.

>>7518797
It is cute, but mostly sad that you identify your mental illness with animals that can literally shit their philology.

You still only answer the part you have what you imagine is a witty quip for, and ignored the question.

Doesn't the fact that evolution designed virtually every other species of complex life in a binary fashion have any impact on what you believe?

>>7518839
Whoops, meant to link
>>7518730

Continued:
That one construct is more popular than another does not make it more factual than another.

>I understand the is/ought problem, I don't think you do since it is completely unrelated to this topic.
We're apparently not debating what is true but rather what we ought do, since you've advanced the argument that there is no objective definition of gender, just more and less popular ones.

>>7518748
Hey, it is on my side! Check the link senpai.

>>7518819
Every shift to our conception of gender and sex was just that. What we're doing now is not some grand new leap but merely another step that, itself, follows what is now a tradition of e.g. feminist thought.

>>7518451
And who here is saying whites are collectively responsible for slavery? That argument mainly comes from SJWs responding to white supremacists who said they personally deserved respect because their "ancestors" (often not actual genetic ancestors, just prominent white people from history) built Western civilization, but refused to take responsibility for the harm done by those same historical white people. It was to point out the white supremacists' hypocrisy for taking responsibility for the good things done by the white race, but not taking responsibility for the bad things whites have done. Only when you take it out of that context, and go around demanding random white people apologize for slavery, does it become hypocritical.

>>7518508
1 person in a thousand isn't insignificant by any means.

>>7518509
Most "non-binary" people are also a mix of male or female, the majority of them don't identify as something totally outside the male-female spectrum.

>>7518521
Evolution isn't a perfect system. Intersex people exist, as do people with genetic physical disabilities. Neither of them really "makes sense" in the context of evolution, but yet they both still exist..

>>7518629
>I never said there was innate value to tradition. I said we should generally stick with tradition because we should be intellectually modest. In case you hadn't noticed, slavery collapsed, and I don't support resurrected traditions which have naturally declined.
What you call being intellectually modest, I call putting your ancestors on a pedestal and worshipping them. They were human too, we shouldn't assume they were right just because others agreed with them. We should look at the reasons and arguments they used to justify those actions, and if they no longer hold up to scrutiny, those traditions should be abolished and replaced with something better.

>>7518857
>It is cute, but mostly sad that you identify your mental illness with animals that can literally shit their philology.
Are you just pretending to be retarded or do you literally not know about e.g. intersexed domestic animals?

>Doesn't the fact that evolution designed virtually every other species of complex life in a binary fashion have any impact on what you believe?
Evolution cannot design anything because it is not a conscious force. The world as it is selects for certain traits. What it selects for is not necessarily "good". Take the sabertooth tigers who some theorized went extinct because the females selected the males with the largest "tusks" to the point where they had trouble closing their mouth.

We are sapient. We can do better.

File: 1452981879711.jpg (55KB, 524x451px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 524x451px

>>7518827
>Evolution does not create social norms.
The overwhelming majority of animal species on the planet have binary sexes. They don't bother with concepts like "gender" because there is literally no value there.

Male (creature)
Female (creature)

This is the ideal (most efficient) system. All deviations are precisely that, deviations. Homosexual behavior in animals doesn't legitimize homosexual behavior in humans any more than a male lion killing a competing male's cubs legitimizes infanticide.

What you need to come to terms with is that any behavior outside of female -> male is a deviation from the norm. If you ascribe value to it other than that, that's your call.

Ideally, for me, I'd live in a world where we all live and let live. The problem being that you want disproportionate representation in the media that I consume.

>more gay/trans characters in tv and movies
There are already proportionally more shows and movies about gay/trans people than there are gay/trans people.

You make up a tiny fraction of the population, you should have a tiny fraction of representation. Asking for more is why people are angry with you.

>>7518895
>All deviations are precisely that, deviations.
How is it a deviation from the norm if it IS the norm, in that that it exists everywhere you look?

>The overwhelming majority of animal species on the planet have binary sexes.
Sure, just like most humans are, but there are still intersexed animals in species where this is not the norm.

>They don't bother with concepts like "gender" because there is literally no value there.
This is true though.

>>7518890
>Are you just pretending to be retarded or do you literally not know about e.g. intersexed domestic animals?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2206293
Read the first line you pretentious fuck.

>Take the sabertooth tigers who some theorized went extinct because
>who some theorized
We have literally no information on the breeding habits of sabertooth tigers. You're using wild speculation as scientific evidence and you're not even aware of it.

>We are sapient. We can do better.
Your implication meaning blurring the lines of established sex and gender is "better". You've yet to even touch on why, which I feel like would be very informative.

>>7518013
OP, I'm gonna be honest with you, the LGBT movement serves no more purpose. It's been hijacked by SJWs. Yes, gays should be allowed to do what they want, no they should not force religious business owners to cater to them, transgenderism IS a mental disorder, and there are only 2 genders, don't let anyone tell you otherwise about that. I was alienated from my own movement for my views, but that's how it is, plain and simple.

>>7518078
> Gender is a western construct
Please drink bleach.

>>7518680
>Secondly, you are assuming that the changes of the last 50 years in gender have been good. The male suicide rate says different honey
The male suicide rate:
1) is influenced by other factors besides the "gender system"
2) was not reliably measured before about 50 years ago

>>7518721
Where does it say that clothes don't have gender?

>>7518819
>Nobody has ever redesigned an entire social system by themselves
No, but that also doesn't mean every social system has developed completely without influence from human agency. People question and criticize their societies all the time, and by doing so, cause social systems to change. People in the past have said "state religion/slavery/women not being allowed to vote/etc is bad, we should change things" and that is HOW societies evolve. This is not just some academic theory, this is something that has been objectively known to be happening in societies for millions of years. It's the whole reason why societies change over time, it's not like "nature" one day said "okay humans, you can have firearms now!". Virtually all social change is driven by human agency. You think you can refute it by saying no ONE person can do all that by themselves, but that's kind of like claiming that the Titanic never existed because no one person can operate a ship of that size by themselves. Even in a dictatorship, society isn't absolutely controlled by one person, it's the composite of the efforts of all people.

And people do have "that knowledge", or think they do at least, again this has happened millions of times. It what revolutionaries, entrepreneurs, and inventors do - they think society would be better if something was different, and they seek to enact that change.

>>7518916
>How is it a deviation from the norm if it IS the norm, in that that it exists everywhere you look?
To what are you referring?

>Sure, just like most humans are, but there are still intersexed animals in species where this is not the norm.
And they reproduce at a lower rate and don't pass their genes, they are in effect breeding themselves out of existence. The distinction with humans being that we coddle those in our midst who are abnormal, rather than letting them die. And the arguments you're making are a direct result. You offer no benefit, and demand special treatment. Do you really not understand why people don't see things the way you do?

>>7518922
Intersexuality is rarely reported in humans too my man.

>We have literally no information on the breeding habits of sabertooth tigers. You're using wild speculation as scientific evidence and you're not even aware of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smilodon

>Your implication meaning blurring the lines of established sex and gender is "better". You've yet to even touch on why, which I feel like would be very informative.
Given that all you've done up to this point is shout nonsense then backtrack I don't think you're arguing in good faith. If you want some idea try reading the thread.

>>7518950
>Given that all you've done up to this point is shout nonsense then backtrack I don't think you're arguing in good faith. If you want some idea try reading the thread.
Neatly sidestepping the obligation. What are the benefits to humanity, society of these behaviors?

>>7518857
>It is cute, but mostly sad that you identify your mental illness with animals that can literally shit their philology.
They were asked for evidence that intersex conditions aren't unique to humans, and they provided it. They're not making some idiotic "animals do it so it's okay" argument.

>Doesn't the fact that evolution designed virtually every other species of complex life in a binary fashion have any impact on what you believe?
Humans are no different from animals in that respect, intersex conditions exist in multiple species even though they're all "designed in a binary fashion". Again, evolution makes mistakes, it's not always consistent with itself. There's no logical evolutionary reason why some people are born with disabilities, but it happens anyway.

>>7518973
Though it may have been unintentional, you've called gay/trans people both mistakes and disabled in this post.

>>7518949
>To what are you referring?
If these abnormalities can be found at a certain rate in so many different species can they be said to be abnormal? They're part of the pattern.

>You offer no benefit
How does a working individual offer no benefit to the society they are part of?

>and demand special treatment
Equal rights are not special treatment.

>Do you really not understand why people don't see things the way you do?
I do. I think it is primarily because they're religious nutjobs who took that Israeli fantasy manga too seriously or those who descend from them and so hold those values by proxy.

>>7518895
>The overwhelming majority of animal species on the planet have binary sexes. They don't bother with concepts like "gender" because there is literally no value there.
Those animals "have binary sexes" to the same extent humans do; most can be classified as male or female, but there's a small minority of intersexed individuals as well.

>Ideally, for me, I'd live in a world where we all live and let live. The problem being that you want disproportionate representation in the media that I consume.
>>more gay/trans characters in tv and movies
>There are already proportionally more shows and movies about gay/trans people than there are gay/trans people.
>You make up a tiny fraction of the population, you should have a tiny fraction of representation. Asking for more is why people are angry with you.
Media isn't even SUPPOSED to be proportionate. It's about telling interesting stories, not about accurately representing the population as a whole. And the LGBT community doesn't control the media, so hating LGBT people for it is pointless. Furthermore, the only way to correct this "disproportional representation" issue is to place restrictions on media producers, which seems to go against your "live and let live" principle.

File: 1389398786950.jpg (42KB, 217x211px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 217x211px

>>7518984
>If these abnormalities can be found at a certain rate in so many different species can they be said to be abnormal? They're part of the pattern.
Essentially your argument is that, in an evolutionary sense, there is some value to homosexual/transexual behavior that we can't see yet. You have no evidence for it, you just want to believe it so you do.

>How does a working individual offer no benefit to the society they are part of?
You can't ascribe that value to their "gender" or "sexuality" they'd contribute that if they were straight too. A gay working man is not more valuable than a straight working man.

>Equal rights are not special treatment.
You have equal rights. Lots of people feel uncomfortable in public restrooms. This isn't the "Joey trans show". This isn't your world. We all have to live here.

>I do. I think it is primarily because they're religious nutjobs who took that Israeli fantasy manga too seriously or those who descend from them and so hold those values by proxy.
Breezing right by the wildly speculative ad hominem, you've effectively shown that you literally don't understand why people don't see things the way you do.

>>7518949
>>7518949
>And they reproduce at a lower rate and don't pass their genes, they are in effect breeding themselves out of existence.
They've been "breeding themselves out of existence" for millions of years, yet they're still here.

>The distinction with humans being that we coddle those in our midst who are abnormal, rather than letting them die.
That's neither universal to humans, nor unique to humans. Many human cultures killed defective children, or at best left them to fend for themselves. And this concept of protecting others is seen in the animal world as well. Additionally, whether we "coddle" intersex people is irrelevant, most are PHYSICALLY unable to reproduce, so the chance of passing their intersex genes on is unchanged whether they live to 3 or 90.

>You offer no benefit, and demand special treatment.
Reproduction is the ONLY benefit provided by human existence? Why then do we not kill the disabled and elderly en masse to make room for "beneficial" human lives? Why is monogamy not only an accepted practice, but a tradition in most human cultures? Reproductive efficiency would be greatly increased if each man mated with multiple women.

>>7518983
I don't mean to be insulting, but from an evolutionary perspective (at least if you imagine evolution as a conscious entity with "intent", as that anon seems to be doing) they are mistakes. The presumed "intent" of evolution is to produce beings that reproduce, so any beings that have traits that make them unlikely to reproduce would be a "mistake" from that perspective. And while I tend to think of homosexuality as a preference rather than a disability, I think it makes more sense to view gender dysphoria as a disability, rather than something comparable to being gay or bi.

>>7519016
>Essentially your argument is that, in an evolutionary sense, there is some value to homosexual/transexual behavior that we can't see yet. You have no evidence for it, you just want to believe it so you do.
Evolution clearly "thinks" there is some value to these traits, or they would have disappeared long ago (considering even "coddled" gays/trannies tend not to reproduce).

>You can't ascribe that value to their "gender" or "sexuality" they'd contribute that if they were straight too. A gay working man is not more valuable than a straight working man.
But they're equally valuable as WORKERS, even if they have no value as REPRODUCTION UNITS. Indeed, they're arguably MORE valuable as workers because they don't need to also worry about reproducing. Something isn't "worthless" just because something else is more capable, that's like saying we should stop producing bicycles because we have airplanes and sports cars.

>Lots of people feel uncomfortable in public restrooms.
It's not about being "uncomfortable" though. It's about safety and equal rights.

>>7518997
>Those animals "have binary sexes" to the same extent humans do; most can be classified as male or female, but there's a small minority of intersexed individuals as well.
This means nothing. There are also animals with 8 legs, a human born with 8 legs would still be considered abnormal.

My major issue is, and remains, you've shown no value, no benefit. You demand that people behave a certain way in your presence, that they don't use certain words that hurt your feelings, and you've yet to show you do anything well enough to deserve these considerations. If I punch you its a hate crime, but if I punch a straight guy it's good old boys at a bar. That's special treatment. Justify it.


>Media isn't even SUPPOSED to be proportionate. It's about telling interesting stories, not about accurately representing the population as a whole. And the LGBT community doesn't control the media, so hating LGBT people for it is pointless. Furthermore, the only way to correct this "disproportional representation" issue is to place restrictions on media producers, which seems to go against your "live and let live" principle.
I don't have an issue with media about gay/trans, and I never have. The issue stems from how loudly that community demands more representation. The implication that lgbt stories are "more interesting" than ones about normal people is pretty telling.

>>7519016
>Essentially your argument is that, in an evolutionary sense, there is some value to homosexual/transexual behavior that we can't see yet. You have no evidence for it, you just want to believe it so you do.
Not exactly, but thanks for bringing that up because I do have some evidence for it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
https://psmag.com/the-old-way-to-be-gay-1ef8f1f16f73#.lhr551fs7

>You can't ascribe that value to their "gender" or "sexuality" they'd contribute that if they were straight too. A gay working man is not more valuable than a straight working man.
This is true. They're just as valuable. Perhaps a slight bit more so if you're fighting overpopulation and a slight bit less if the state is funding the transsexual.

>You have equal rights. Lots of people feel uncomfortable in public restrooms. This isn't the "Joey trans show". This isn't your world. We all have to live here.
Transwomen are literally taking a highly potent libido inhibitor. They're not much of a threat. On the other hand it is dangerous for them to go into the men's bathroom for much of the same reason bathrooms are separated in the first place.

With that said I think this whole issue is dumb in the first place. Just move to a universal stall-based architecture.

>Breezing right by the wildly speculative ad hominem, you've effectively shown that you literally don't understand why people don't see things the way you do.
I think it applies to a fair amount of people given how many jews, christians and muslims there are out there.

>>7519050
>With that said I think this whole issue is dumb in the first place. Just move to a universal stall-based architecture.
I've been talking with you this whole time, at times aggravated and at times fascinated. This is, almost word for word, what I told my family this holiday season.

>>7519043
>You demand that people behave a certain way in your presence, that they don't use certain words that hurt your feelings
That's true for everyone. It is just that most people share the set of words they find hurtful.

>and you've yet to show you do anything well enough to deserve these considerations
The primary commodity a human provides society is labor, gay or straight.

>If I punch you its a hate crime, but if I punch a straight guy it's good old boys at a bar. That's special treatment.
It is only a hate crime if you did it in an attempt to persecute that person. If you punched a straight guy for being straight I think it would be fair and right to treat this as a hate crime.

>>7519065
Glad to hear that we've found one thing we agree on haha.

>>7519074
>The primary commodity a human provides society is labor, gay or straight.
not relevant to the statement you quoted. You believe that the laws that serve "normal" people don't serve you, you're demanding special consideration. You've demonstrated no special value to deserve them. You deserve what everyone else gets, and yet you complain about it.

>>7519091
Everyone gets the same, but their likes and dislikes differ. The majority share what they find offensive and acceptable. Some do not. Being considerate to people with different preferences is not giving those people "more rights".

>>7518013
The cure to Gender dysphoria is literally fucking transitioning, I spend 2% of my life trying to stress this to you shitheads.

>>7519043
>This means nothing. There are also animals with 8 legs, a human born with 8 legs would still be considered abnormal.
Uh, no, that's not even remotely comparable. Intersex conditions are an abnormality that exists both in humans and animals.

>My major issue is, and remains, you've shown no value, no benefit
What value and benefit do you provide? In what way is the world I live in better because of your existence?

>If I punch you its a hate crime
Only if it's associated with homophobic speech or other signs of hatred of gays being a motivated factor.

>but if I punch a straight guy it's good old boys at a bar.
And you think that's a good thing, this attitude that violence against straight males should be normalized and accepted?

>The implication that lgbt stories are "more interesting" than ones about normal people is pretty telling.
Most people are straight and cis, so LGBT stories are considered more exotic, and therefore interesting. Media is all about exposing people to different things, people aren't interested in watching movies and reading books that tell them what their own life is like, they already know that.

>>7519091
>straight people can marry each other and adopt children
>gay people are forbidden from doing so
In what way is this "equal rights"?

>>7518392
Because bathrooms shouldn't be gendered in the first place.

>>7518013

Consider this fresh new way of thinking: You don't have to understand things to accept them.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're not transgender or Non-binary or whatever, so you should have no problem admitting to the fact that you have no actual personal experience with gender issues.

So why do you think there are only 2 genders? Why are you calling Transgenderism a mental illness? Surely you know yourself you're not qualified to make those assumptions so why would you do it? Maybe it's time to consider that all you're doing is projecting a fantasy of how you think things 'should' be onto a reality of how things actually are and that's why you don't understand it.

I don't know what it's like to live with Bipolar disorder, but that doesn't mean I think every Bipolar sufferer is making it up. By your logic I could project my limited personal experience onto everyone else and tell them that it's 'Not a real thing' just because I've never experienced it.

But I don't. I just acknowledge that hey, maybe I don't actually know shit about this because I have no experience and go about my day like a normal person.

>>7518970
>benefits to humanity
lmao, what are the benefits to humanity of you shitposting on this forum rn?

>>7519043
>you've shown no value, no benefit
It would be objectively beneficial for the future of the species if you killed yourself and stopped using up valuable resources, I'm hoping you will stay true to your beliefs and go for it.