Everyone who mocked the slippery slope should now apologize

But yes, humanity learns new things as we proceed. Like the example you used, not long ago did humanity believe lobotomy was useful.

So we are done learning now?  Everything we now know is 100% correct and we should question nothing?  Or should we just not question things that relate to sexualizing children or mutilating them?

actually the distinction between sex and gender goes at least to the 1930’s

No it does not.  Look up the etymology of the word. The word has been around for several hundred years and has multiple uses but as it related to people it was synonymous with sex.   Somewhere around the 50s/60s it was first used to refer to characteristics that were masculine or feminine vs sex.  Clearly that was not intended to equate to I am a man but now I am a woman.  The reality is, it does not matter.  No one cares what you call or consider yourself. The only time we run into an issue is when that is forced on others.

Yes, obviously gender is based on sex. Gender is what we as a society perceive to be a bart of being of one sex. A social construct.

No, gender is sex.  If you are referring to masculine and feminine traits , those words already exist.  Observation is not a social construct.  A man who exhibits feminine traits is simply a man who exhibits feminine traits.  It’s no more complex than that.   What we know are typically feminine (or masculine)  traits are observation based on reality.  This is not a social construct.  Does society then see a man or a woman and expect those those?  Of course.  That’s how our brains work, pattern recognition.  So that expectation comes from what we have observed and is not arbitrary nor planned.

This character is called Aigis, she is an android. She has no female biology, but people use female pronouns when talking about her. 

It has no biology at all.  It is not a human. And it’s not anything but pixels on a screen or ink on a paper.  Fantasy stories are not examples of reality.

Another example is women you see on the streets. You can’t see their chromosones, and I hope you don’t peek at their genitalia. But when you see a woman, you know it’s a woman from the clothing, makeup, hair length, mannerisms and so on. This is not biology, we make the judgement based on if they look and act like society thinks a woman should act and look like. Agree or disagree? 

Um no sir.  Not at all.  I can see a woman, typically one I find attractive, that draws my attention from far enough away where I do not see makeup or details of clothing.  The shape, mannerisms (that is very biological) and movement is what draws my attention.  So no, makeup or hair or clothes does not define woman for or man for me. Those are clues at best.  I am not going to confuse a 6 foot man in a dress in full makeup and long hair as a woman.

And again, society does not think a man or woman is anything but what it has observed a man or woman to be.  The expectations are a natural reaction to observed reality not the other way around.

This world you want to live in where people should be treated as what they demand, everything is a mailable construct and there are no stigmas and everything you want to do is OK, is the logical conclusion of all this.  That world will never exist because humanity will have drummed itself out of existence following that path long before it arrives at it.

Now, to bridge the gap and find more common ground between us, I do not think trans women is the same as ”regular” women

There is no such thing as a trans woman.  You are either a man or a woman.  The term is not subjective and there are not multiple types of each sex.  You can be transgender but even that term in itself is a fallacy.  This goes for “biological woman” as well.  All women are biological so there is no need for the additional descriptor. It only serves to infer that there is more than one type of woman.  There is not.

ButI agree, using wrong pronouns should not be sufficient. If pronouns are intentionally used incorrectly as a way to harrass or bully then it’s understandable.

No it is not understandable.  If I as an adult am so damaged by you not using the words I wish you to use that I think you need to be in jail, then the problem is me and not you.  You seem to have no grasp of cause and effect.  If you give the government the power to fine or jail based on another persons demand for how they should act or say words towards do you think it stops at “pronouns”?  You are asking for laws to be written that are 100% subjective.  Those get used as tools of submission.  One’s freedom ends at the doorstep of someone else’s freedom.  You don’t get to force people to do or say what you want.  That’s removing someone else’s freedom no matter how compassionate you think it might be.  And entertaining another person’s illness is not compassion.

Then I believe we agree that best solution for gender dysphoria is transitioning. More common ground.

No I don’t agree.  The best solution is the one where you don’t hack parts off your body. Your body is not the problem, your mind is.  However, if adults wish to do that fine.  But it should be like it was, you have to pay for it yourself and it only happens after all attempts at mental help fail.

As long as we have guard rails and no progress is made successfully, it’s all that matters.

I did not say progress was not being made.  I said it has yet to be successful.  But the radical left has a formula for such things.  You keep pushing from the edges and even if you only make a minute amount of progress, over time the edges end up being the middle.  You are now of the precipice of this happening, if the idea that children can consent becomes even entertained it’s over.  And we are about there now.

No I do not, I am not using whataboutism about priests. I am using priests as an example of not engaging in linking something as a whole to pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a part of drag or transgenders, just as pedophilia is not a part of priests. You should be able to separate them.

You are using priests as an example because you yourself link them to pedophilia so your entire thought is a fallacy.  And I did not state all drag queens or all trans people were pedophiles.  I never claimed any amount of them were or were not.  What I have described is that pedophiles will use the angle of attack available to them.  They can join the priesthood, play along and get access to children.  Or they can be a drag queen, play along and get access to children.  So there is now enough drag queens and priests involved in this where both groups are known to be ripe with pedophiles as compared to other groups.  And while pedo priests do not publicly sexualize children, pedo drag queens and even non pedo drag queens certainly do.  All drag people? No, not at all.  But those guys are not in the news, just the ones sexualizing children.

 But going on stage dressed as a woman and making jokes about being a woman is also drag. You can just look up and read any paper on history of drag, just saying ”I disagree, propaganda” is not an argument.

It’s propaganda because you are redefining the term so that it encompasses a far larger group such as to cloak the core meaning to normalize it.  The left does this almost constantly.  Just like prior to the last 5 mins transgender meant you lived like the opposite sex 100% of the time and or you had surgery.  Now “trans” is a feeling.  So the term was redefined so that the group is larger to normalize it.  Same thing with drag.  Putting on a dress and being funny, does not equate to being a gay man dressed as an overt caricature of a woman and performing.   Me at Halloween wearing a dress to be silly is not drag.  Eddie Lizard on stage decades ago telling jokes dressed up ladies’ garb and in makeup was not drag.  That was always known as cross dressing.  Drag, was always something else.

But that argument is meaningless. NO ONE cares about drag queens.  The only thing people care about is drag queens being around children as drag queens.  It is a sexual performance and the only reason you would do that around children is to sexualize children.  And no sexual does not mean actual sex.

not really, I was just curious when you said it happens in large numbers, as I want to make sure you are being good faith and not exaggerating things as I do not fact check everything you say because I want to maintain charitable and able to take your words for granted

Well I would hope you know by now I do not engage on topics I have not put my own thought into and based on my own research.  If I did then I would just be a parrot and my words would have zero substance and I could be debunked by a child.  This is why I don’t even say prayers other people wrote (outside of the Our Father as it is Biblical).  There is no value in being a parrot.

Also, I encourage you to lookup everything I say.  I tell my own child not to take my word for it, I tell her to go research it herself.  For you that exercise would not just provide you the opportunity to prove me wrong but to learn.  And if you do prove me wrong, then I learn.  It’s a win/win.

But do you believe making surgery on a child’s genitals is okay if it doesn’t sterilize you?

If there is good reason for it sure.  I am certain those are routine for ailments that are corrected that way.  Now for circumcision.  That is such an ancient practice no one really knows why it started.   And it has changed forms over the years.  It is curious to wonder why it remained for so long and across many civilizations.  I suspect this is because of religious and mechanical reasons.  If you have ever been around animals, particularly large farm animals you know that sometimes the males get infections or other issues because mechanically their penis is inside of skin.  A man’s is essentially the same.  So I can see removing the foreskin as a hygienic thing that made sense prior to modern civilization.  And we much keep in mind large swaths of the world is not modern.

But clearly circumcision, while maybe of no benefit now, is not in the same universe as cutting things off or makes new holes in you.  Although there is an irony to that statement.  The root of modern trans/gender theory (in my understanding) was John Money who took a pair of twin boys and had the family raise one as a girl.  Why?  One boy’s circumcision was botched.  They used some sort of cauterizing tool at the time and ended up essentially burning his penis off.  And because of that mistake, we not have this modern version where “gender” is a social construct.

I don’t care what people think

As it should be.  One cannot be free while tethered to the will of others.

people on the right think I am a blue haired radical socialist leftist 

Well I don’t pick teams so I don’t consider myself on the right anymore than many of thoughts align on that end but not always.  I find myself typically caught in the same middle ground where one side considers me a Nazi and the other a self hating American who spouts psychobabble to assist the Jews or Muslims or whatever group it is they blame everything on.

I consider you what you have described yourself as, a progressive.  And while you are smart, I believe the foundation of your beliefs sits on sand.   One does not only learn by only testing and observing what is outside of you, you also have to test and observe what is in you.

sure, some people regret it. But the regret rate is around 0.5%, so bringing up single instances will not affect my position.

No, the regret rate is far higher.  But that is a very hard number to create because regret is subjective. And for adults, this does not matter.  Well I mean it matters, but that regret rests on their own wishes as an adult.    To believe a child, especially a young child, has the faculties to make that sort of decision is simply being disingenuous or nefarious. Giving a child the power to harm their bodies in that way through surgery or drugs causing them to be sterile or “deformed” is beyond barbaric.   The very thought of it has lead to a social contagion causing physical and mental harm to many children.  And let’s say the regret rate for adults is low.  I would imagine for children it is far far higher.  And that is entirely the topic of our conversation here.  The wellbeing of children.

• This reply was modified 2 weeks, 5 days ago by Vknid.