patrick.net

And the left brings more insanity to the world.

"For Oregonians, being able to demonstrate a non-binary gender on their licenses can be the first step toward public visibility for the rest of us who are"

goofy

lostand confused says

"Non binary" now legal gender option in Oregon

What is the purpose of listing gender on an ID? Only to confirm a person's ID. If a dude looks like and dresses like a lady, marking male on his ID just hinders identification.

You are letting your arbitrary cultural preferences take precedence over the purpose of an ID.

Why take a picture? Why include eye color? Why include weight? Why include height?

You'll never believe it, but YOU CAN WEAR A MASK! YOU CAN WEAR COLORED CONTACTS! YOU CAN GAIN/LOSE WEIGHT! YOU CAN EVEN WEAR TALLER SHOES!!!!! OMGG!! You can alter anything.

This is beyond stupid.

An ID is comprised of a persons physical traits. Sex (male/female), just happens to be a gasp physical trait.

All this non binary, trans femme, gender fluid, gender flux, gender neutral, femme girl, demi girl is just straight up bullshit - and sick perversion of the left.

Your either born with a penis (male), or a vagina (female).

For those awkward cases which affect .000000000001% of the population where sex is indeterminate, well, pick a gender and stick with it.

The left has gone bat-fucking-shit crazy.

joshuatrio says

Why take a picture? Why include eye color? Why include weight? Why include height?

Those things all aid in identifying. In the case of a transgender, gender actually hinders identifying. Once more, people are putting the cultural agenda before the very purpose of an ID.

A BOLO comes out for a 5'8" Caucasian man with dirty blonde hair and blue eyes. Would you match that description to this man?

I didn't think so. Now, if the said a CIS male / transgender female or even non-binary, would you have missed the suspect?

That's the fucking difference. It is MORE useful to the state to let transgenders pick non-binary so that the cops can more easily identify the people they are searching for. I guess law enforcement and public safety don't mean as much to you as the warm fuzzy you get by having the state officially support your cultural preferences as if the state officially saying there are only two genders somehow vindicates you and your culture. Are you seriously that insecure? You need the nanny state's attention and approval?

Dan8267 says

I guess law enforcement and public safety don't mean as much to you as the warm fuzzy you get by having the state officially support your cultural preferences as if the state officially saying there are only two genders somehow vindicates you and your culture.

For fucks sake Dan, any dude can dress up as a chick and commit a crime. Having a non-binary gender on a DL isn't going to do shit.

Dan8267 says

Are you seriously that insecure?

Wait ...

HAHA

HAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Is a cross dressing dude so fucking insecure that he can't label himself a .. dude?

Long gone is common sense where a penis = a man, and a vagina = a woman.

joshuatrio says

For fucks sake Dan - anyone can cross dress and commit a crime.

There's a big ass difference between someone cross-dressing to hide at the moment and someone who is living a transgender lifestyle day to day. Again, if you want the police to find the person they are looking for, you'd be all for this. Which is more important? Law enforcement and public safety, or having the nanny state say "yes, you are right, there are only two genders"? I think the former is more important. Even if you don't give a shit about transgenders, you should want this just for the utility to law enforcement.

Hell, why the flying fuck is your address and physical description on a driver's license anyway? Because it's not about driving. It's about the state being able to physically take you into custody at any time, and that means knowing where you leave and what you look like. This helps that.

joshuatrio says

Is a cross dressing dude so fucking insecure that he can't label himself a .. dude?

Long gone is common sense where a penis = a man, and a vagina = a woman.

Again, your comment demonstrates that your need for the nanny state to support your cultural beliefs is more important than the very practical needs of law enforcement. Even every state and the federal government state that there are only two genders, you'll still have to call a CIC male transgender "her" because that's a social protocol and the state has no say over that. Sure you can buck that trend, but then people will call you an asshole bigot and your social status will be lowered and hot chicks won't want you.

Bitch and moan all you want, the culture of the United States will continue to change, and if you cannot deal with that, you will only succeed in making yourself a social pariah.

Dan8267 says

Again, your comment demonstrates that your need for the nanny state to support your cultural beliefs is more important than the very practical needs of law enforcement.

Ok Dan, let me ask you a question. If a person is born with a penis, what does that make them? AND THEN, if you correctly answer that one, I have another question for you. If a person is born with a vagina, what does that make them?

I'm pretty sure if any cop pulled over "Jamie, " they'd know exactly "what" Jamie is.

From the article: "The change is effective July 1 and does not need a doctor’s note to take place."

Yeaaahhhh....... Go ahead and call me a bigot/misogynist/xenophobic (blah blah blah) pig - but this is just laughable bullshit - only making the transgender crowd look even more insane.

joshuatrio says

does not need a doctor’s note

That part does surprise me, but otherwise the change is good news. Around 1% of the population are non-binary, and some of them drive. You wrote they should "pick a gender and stick with it," but that doesn't always work. Suppose a driver gets pulled over and taken into custody for some reason, maybe even a mistake. The general population of prisoners is usually segregated male/female, and there isn't much privacy. Also, consider TSA and airport security theater. It's better to have ID that describes more accurately the person, although when I saw the headline I had assumed there would be some sort of medical evidence.

curious2 says

That part does surprise me, but otherwise the change is good news. Around 1% of the population are non-binary, and some of them drive. You wrote they should "pick a gender and stick with it,"

Not that my opinion matters at all, but here's what would make this DL option a lot more legitimate:

Change the legal gender option from non-binary - to "gender reassigned (M/F)" AND require a doctors note that they've validated your gonads. (hint: pick a gender and stick with it, if you're serious)

Non-binary is just an excuse for dudes to dress as women, and not get their junk cut off.

Isn't non-binary pointless since no one fits 100% perfectly into these rigid gender "norms" anyways? I don't hate trans people for being trans. I don't believe in harassing anyone or beating anyone up because of the way they look and dress. I'd only hit someone if they hit me or tried to hit me, but that's a reasonable self defense. That being said, aren't trans people really just reinforcing gender stereotypes? What's it "feel" like to be a woman anyways? What's it "feel" like to be a man? Being a man and being a woman is an actual material reality, not a feeling in someone's head.

And what's with that cis scum bullshit? Since non-trans folk are scum, why don't they create their own trans teams/magazines/bathrooms etc? Why would they want to associate with us? Also, doesn't that take away from the trans experience?

Like I said, I don't hate them. However, I will never date and sleep with one. If that makes me some kind of "phobe", whatever. I know I'm not, so believe what you want.

Zee says

what's with that

Wow again, I had thought that meme was a joke or a false flag fabricated by alt-right, but apparently it goes back to 2011. "The phrase is a response to the death threats commonly received by members of the transgender community." IRL, I've never heard that phrase, but I've met many trans people. (Apparently, I'm not supposed to say "tranny" anymore, even though I've been to Trannyshack, which was not really my taste but still better than Radio Shack.) Some examples of terrible violence against trans persons go back a long way, and there appears now to be a continuing narrative alleging that's worsening, though IDK if the percentages have changed.

The pattern in the USA tended to be, due to the artificially high price of medical services including drugs and the Rx mandate, younger trans persons have tended to need more money than they have. Some have therefore gone into prostitution, which has an elevated risk of violence. Other countries have cheaper surgery and drugs, and no Rx mandate, or national health services, so they tend not to have as much of this problem. Somehow, instead of blaming lemon socialism (privatizing profits and socializing losses), the narrative blames people for allegedly not caring about the needs of trans people. I do care, but I think the solution is to remove the artificial costs in the American system, or meanwhile fund a charity that pays for trips to Thailand, where surgery and drugs are cheap and results appear to be as good or better.

Guess you need to have a picture of your junk on your driver's license, too, now.

Highway Patrol: "Driver's license, registration, and flash your junk, please." TSA at airport: "Back through with your junk exposed, please."

DMV offices are going to have to install crouch and spread booths for cameras. Now they will truly have the courtesy and ambiance of a prison intake.

curious2 says

Zee says

what's with that

Wow again, I had thought that meme was a joke or a false flag fabricated by alt-right, but apparently it goes back to 2011. "The phrase is a response to the death threats commonly received by members of the transgender community.

" IRL, I've never heard that phrase, but I've met many trans people. (Apparently, I'm not supposed to say "tranny" anymore, even though I've been to Trannyshack, which was not really my taste but still better than Radio Shack.) Some examples of terrible violence against trans persons go back a long way, and there appears now to be a continuing narrative alleging that's worsening, though IDK if the percentages have changed.

The pattern in the USA tended to be, due to the artificially high price of medical services including drugs and the Rx mandate, younger trans persons ...

Cis white male & all that...smh. I lived by a college full of screaming mimi's like that.

joshuatrio says

Ok Dan, let me ask you a question. If a person is born with a penis, what does that make them?

No shit it makes them male. That's not the point. The point is that having the state ID list transgender is more USEFUL for identification if a male looks female. Again, answer the question. Which is more important to you: having the nanny state say you're right or the police finding the persons they are looking for? If you cared about anything other than a stupid culture war that you are going to lose anyway, you'd be all for listing transgender on the ID. It makes a man that looks like a woman and is called a woman by everyone around him more likely to be recognized by the police. Having the driver's license say male isn't going to stop that man being called a woman or him using the woman's room. If you want to stop that then the only answer is to ban multi-user bathrooms.

So again, which is more important, nanny state recognition of your cultural preference or law enforcement?

joshuatrio says

I'm pretty sure if any cop pulled over "Jamie, " they'd know exactly "what" Jamie is.

Sure, that guy, but what about the picture of the guy I posted. Oh, no they wouldn't. And that's the point. It's not the worst disguise you have to handle, but the best.

And again, you're going to lose the culture war anyway. Transgender is going to become completely accepted, no different than women wearing pants. So you might as well get use to it.

Zee says

Isn't non-binary pointless since no one fits 100% perfectly into these rigid gender "norms" anyways?

There are truly non-binary species like slime mold. And since genes are activated and deactivated by hormones, a person whose DNA is one gender could, at least in principle, completely or partially develop into a person of the other gender. Pump a female fetus full of testosterone and she won't develop a womb, but rather completely male genitalia.

However, such biological discrepancies are extremely rare. Most transgender people are simply gay people who want to live as the opposite gender. And since the state should not in any way force cultural preferences onto others, that's their legal right. Of course calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. I know people who live as Vulcan Americans. It's just a fantasy, but a harmless one. It's not a dangerous fantasy like religion or the belief in an afterlife. So there is no reason to force people to comply to gender roles.

I'd argue that there is no such thing as a male or female personality trait. Rather there are simply personality traits that are more common in male and female humans, but can be held by any male or female. Some such traits are more useful to members of one gender, but why the hell should anyone not mating with them give a damn what traits people foster in their own lives?

Since we should be using single-user bathrooms anyway and not incarcerating people in dungeons or strip searching them, there is no legitimate reason for the state to even know a person's gender or than it's utility in identification. If they are acting on such information, the state is doing something wrong. And quite frankly, unless you are trying to mate with someone, why the hell does his or her gender matter to you anyway?

Dan8267 says

No shit it makes them male.

Very good.

Dan8267 says

The point is that having the state ID list transgender is more USEFUL for identification if a male looks female.

Wrong. By your logic we shouldn't even have IDs. Since every physical trait can be altered, there is no true constant, therefore everyone is neither male nor female. By your logic, if I want to say my gender is a turnip, I can magically become a turnip.

This is where your bullshit falls apart.

You can call it social or cultural norm all you want but, science/reason/logic say otherwise.

If a dude is born with a penis, he is a male (as you stated). You can put lipstick on the pig all you want, and chop his shit off, but he is still a dude.

Non binary is not a true gender. Its a term the mentally ill use to describe themselves when they don't like what they are and want to live in an alternate reality.

Tell me, if you pulled this person over, would you say chick.... Or dick?

So to sum it up, an ID should identify what you actually are, not what your mentally I'll mind wishes you were.

joshuatrio says

Wrong. By your logic we shouldn't even have IDs

No, not at all. The additional information only improves identification. There is no downside to it.

joshuatrio says

By your logic, if I want to say my gender is a turnip, I can magically become a turnip.

No. By my logic, if you could morph yourself into a turnip, a convincing one, that didn't look like a man or a woman, then maybe your ID should say animagus or vegimagus. Oh, and by the way, the Ministry of Magic does require animagus to register with their animal form for precisely the reason of identifying wizards who take animal form. #magicalLawyered

joshuatrio says

So to sum it up, an ID should identify what you actually are, not what your mentally I'll mind wishes you were.

Wrong. An ID should identify you. That's it. That's the only purpose. What aids in identification is useful. What hinders identification does not.

You are trying to use ID to make a political statement at the cost of accurately identifying people. You are putting your petty politics about the sole purpose of the ID, law enforcement, and public safety. You are literally playing identity politics just like the left does. Once more, you have demonstrated that the political left and the political right are the same.

joshuatrio says

Tell me, if you pulled this person over, would you say chick.... Or dick?

Yeah, I would identify that person as a man, and by posting that picture you have confirmed my point that many transgender CIS males look absolutely female. If you weren't conceding that point than you would have answered the question I posted way before any of your pictures. Would you have correctly identified this CIS male as a man? Obviously not.

By the way, I could easy post hundreds of pictures of CIS males that look more female than most CIS females. I could also post hundred of pictures of CIC females that look more male than most CIS males. It's pretty damn easy to use Google Image Search.

joshuatrio says

If a dude is born with a penis, he is a male (as you stated). You can put lipstick on the pig all you want, and chop his shit off, but he is still a dude.

You are playing identity politics. Putting transgender on an ID does not mean that sex changes, under current technology, are actually changes in gender. It does, however, make identification far more accurate. You are playing the same stupid identity politics game that the left is.

Oh, and by the way, real sex changes are possible in principle and eventually technology will enable them. If you change the DNA by adding or removing the y-chromosome, revert cells back to stem cells, and grow the appropriate body parts while truncating others, then yes, your gender will have changed. And that is just one of many ways that sex changes could be implemented. There is no law of physics that prevents technology from actually converting a male human body into a female one or vice versa. That's not what existing technology does, but give it a century and technology will do this. After all, other species can and do make their adults change genders.

So like it or not, gender bending is here to stay, and quite frankly, you should get use to it.

Dan8267 says

An ID should identify you. That's it.

The brightest thing you've said in the whole convo.

Unfortunately, you want to pervert your feelings with reality.

An ID is comprised mostly of someone's physical makeup. Hair, eye, weight, gender. While you can alter the "look" of these features, you can't change who you are. It's these "permanent" features which make you - you.

A dude wearing a dress does not make him a woman or a non binary gender. It's just a cross dressing dude. Complete with a penis.

Same can be said for a guy who gets his penis whacked off in exchange for a fake vagina. This person is still.... A dude with a fake vagina

Dan8267 says

You are trying to use ID to make a political statement at the cost of accurately identifying people. You are putting your petty politics about the sole purpose of the ID, law enforcement, and public safety. You are literally playing identity politics just like the left does.

Not at all. The transgendered community wants to live in an alternate version of reality. The fact that anyone can become a unicorn continually blows my mind.

Funny, I was talking with my friend this morning who is a physician about this topic to see what his take on it was. His reply:

"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."

joshuatrio says

Unfortunately, you want to pervert your feelings with reality.

You're projecting.

My position is that you should chuck the identify politics. Clearly it pisses you off that transgender CIS males should be called female. Well, get used to it because that's not going to changed. You have already lost that battle.

joshuatrio says

An ID is comprised mostly of someone's physical makeup.

The sole purpose of an ID is to identify, not to classify. You are simply wrong on this issue. You are placing your identify politics before the entire and sole purpose of an ID.

joshuatrio says

A dude wearing a dress does not make him a woman or a non binary gender. It's just a cross dressing dude. Complete with a penis.

You clearly do not know the difference between transgender and cross-dressing. They are completely different things.

joshuatrio says

Dan8267 says

You are trying to use ID to make a political statement at the cost of accurately identifying people. You are putting your petty politics about the sole purpose of the ID, law enforcement, and public safety. You are literally playing identity politics just like the left does.

Not at all. The left wants to live in an alternate version of reality.

The right does exactly this same thing. Fox News and Breitbart demonstrate this every single day from issues like in person voter fraud to climate change to Obama being a secret foreign Muslim to Iraq having WMD to waterboarding not being torture. Once again, the left and the right are the same. They both live in alternative reality.

You are doing the exact same thing right now regarding sex changes. Although current technology only allows for a crude and inaccurate approximation of a sex change, future technology will allow for a perfect transition right down to the molecular level. That will happen. If the laws of physics don't prohibit something and there is sufficient demand, people will eventually do that thing.

Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?

Dan8267 says

Although current technology only allows for a crude and inaccurate approximation of a sex change, future technology will allow for a perfect transition right down to the molecular level.

Unfortunately, this "person" would be classified as a science experiment.

Dan8267 says

You are placing your identify politics before the entire and sole purpose of an ID.

You keep leaning on the term identity politics to substitute reality with your alternate reality.

Previously, you referred to me as insecure,
when you can't seem to accept that it's the transgendered community who is insecure.

And oh so conveniently ignored:

joshuatrio says

"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."

joshuatrio says

I was talking with my friend this morning who is a physician about this topic to see what his take on it was. His reply:

"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."

Even if you believe they're mentally ill, that seems like a reason to offer the ID. How else can you get otherwise competent people to carry an ID identifying themselves as mentally ill? If you are mailing something fragile, you try to pack well and write "FRAGILE" on the outside. If you are issuing a driver's license to someone who can drive a car but might not be playing with a full deck, then a voluntary label might be a good idea. Besides, there's no way in which you are worse off for it.

I don't presume to know all the reasons why a person might idenfify as non-binary, including genetic and anatomical, but physicians have had different opinions at different times.

Consider this update, from 2001: "Why some doctors are moving away from performing surgery on babies of indeterminate gender.
***
Each year, about one in 2,000 children is born with ambiguous-looking genitalia.
***
For 50 years, the medical response to such external abnormalities has been the same: operate quickly to make the genitals as "normal" as possible, then hide the child's medical history even from parents, in the hope of reinforcing the new gender. Convinced they were doing the best for their patients, doctors in the past labeled ambiguous children boys or girls according to the alteration that seemed most feasible and performed highly invasive, irreversible surgeries accordingly."

Decades of interviews led to a change in the standard of care.

When you add up all the different reasons why people can be non-binary, it works out to over a million Americans, and most can drive. You seem to insist that they pick a binary label and "stick with it", so that they conform to your assumptions about them, but chances are you haven't walked a mile in their shoes. (Careful: high heels can be tricky!) You're talking about their lives, not yours. They pay their taxes, pass their driver's tests, follow the same traffic laws as everyone else. It doesn't make sense for you to care very much whether the checkbox on someone else's ID says M/F/N, but the person carrying that ID might care very much about that.

joshuatrio says

Dan8267 says

Although current technology only allows for a crude and inaccurate approximation of a sex change, future technology will allow for a perfect transition right down to the molecular level.

Unfortunately, this "person" would be classified as a science experiment.

Not at all and you are dodging the issue.

joshuatrio says

You keep leaning on the term identity politics to substitute reality with your alternate reality.

Again you are projecting. You tried to trap me into advocating an alternative reality and you failed miserably. You cannot state a single statement I've made that advocates putting politics before the truth. You, however, are putting politics before proper identification and that has real world consequences in terms of law enforcement.

joshuatrio says

And oh so conveniently ignored:

joshuatrio says

"In the medical community, transgendered people are referred to as mentally ill. Usually, they are trying to alter themselves because of a childhood event, usually involving sexual abuse. It's really sad."

It would take hours to discredit every minute piece of misinformation you've said. However, since you foolishly attempted to take the position that I ignored a point -- something that I never, ever do -- I will now humiliate you by addressing it. (Hints to others: never call Dan's attention to a point you made because if it were actually a good point, he would have acknowledged it. If he hasn't addressed it, it's probably because it was such a stupid point it wasn't worth addressing and calling attention to it will demonstrate that.)

So, you are saying that if medical authorities classify something as a mental illness or not, we should all accept that position. Very well. I will hold you to that position.

Live Science: Transgender Identity Is Not a Mental Health Disorder, Study Finds

Using a statistical analysis, the researchers found that social rejection and violence were strong indicators that a transgender person would experience distress and dysfunction. Having a transgender identity, on the other hand, was not a predictor of stress or dysfunction, they found.

"Our findings support the idea that distress and dysfunction may be the result of stigmatization and maltreatment, rather than integral aspects of transgender identity,” Rebeca Robles, a researcher at the Mexican National Institute of Psychiatry and the lead author of the study, said in a statement. In other words, the distress and dysfunction that the transgender individuals reported in the study was more likely the result of being treated with prejudice, rather than inherent to having a transgender identity in and of itself.

Scientific America: Where Transgender Is No Longer a Diagnosis

“[G]ender identity disorder” was dropped from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), U.S. psychiatry’s bible for diagnosing mental illness. A new condition called “gender dysphoria” was added to diagnose and treat those transgender individuals who felt distress at the mismatch between their identities and their bodies. The new diagnosis recognized that a mismatch between one’s birth gender and identity was not necessarily pathological, notes pediatric endocrinologist Norman Spack, a founder of the gender clinic at Boston Children’s Hospital. It shifted the emphasis in treatment from fixing a disorder to resolving distress over the mismatch.

Spack compares the DSM-5’s new definition as similar in effect to its 1973 declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness. University of San Francisco human rights scholar Richard Johnson agrees. Although gay people certainly knew they were not sick, he says, the move did have an effect. “It has allowed the gay population in the U.S. an opportunity to pursue life on their own terms,” he says. “This will also be the same situation for the transgender population living in Denmark.”

Yeah, you do have one hold out, the World Health Organization. However, that one hold out is also going to change its position. New York Times: W.H.O. Weighs Dropping Transgender Identity From List of Mental Disorders

The World Health Organization is moving toward declassifying transgender identity as a mental disorder in its global list of medical conditions, with a new study lending additional support to a proposal that would delete the decades-old designation.

“It’s sending a very strong message that the rest of the world is no longer considering it a mental disorder,” said Dr. Michael First, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University and the chief technical consultant to the new edition of the codebook, which is known by its initials and the edition number I.C.D.-11.

Science is a self-correcting mechanism, and this is a perfect example of a mistake being corrected.

So, are you now accepting transgender as mentally healthy? Unless the answer is a resounding yes, you are being hypocritical.

#lawyered

Also, you haven't address the question I asked below.

Dan8267 says

Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?

Afraid to?

Side note. If we were completely honest, the belief in a god would be classified as a mental illness since it is a gross delusion completely divorced from reality.

Dan8267 says

belief in a god would be classified as....

Scott Adams:

"When I was younger, I would have automatically assumed that I was right and the Huffington Post was either intentionally lying or deluded. My more mature understanding of the world is that most people are hallucinating most of the time. We live in our own personal movies."

He wrote elsewhere that natural selection did not equip humans with an ability to perceive directly objective reality, nor even favor that result. Evolution favors whatever works. If people believe an imaginary deity is watching them all the time and will reward them for being fruitful and multiplying, and if that belief makes them more likely to be fruitful and multiply, then natural selection favors it. A hallucination isn't "illness" if it is adaptive.

curious2 says

it works out to over a million Americans, and most can drive.

A lot of mentally ill people on the road.

curious2 says

Even if you believe they're mentally ill, that seems like a reason to offer the ID.

Lol. No.

If you feel bad for someone, give them a lollipop, but don't tell someone they can be a butterfly if they really want to be. Giving them a butterfly just encourages such nonsense.

People do not get to decide which gender they are born with. Cutting and hacking all day may change appearance, but not what they really are.

curious2 says

You're talking about their lives, not yours.

We're talking about an ID and if someone is a dude or dudette.

Reality says if you were born a dude, you are a dude. Your alternate version of reality says, if I feel like I want to be a unicorn, I can.

Your arguments are complete bullshit. You try to muddle feelings with simple biology.

joshuatrio says

simple biology.

See above, about "hallucinating most of the time." On this very screen, you have multiple references documenting that observable biology is not simple and disproves your assumptions. Your tiny percentage above was off by orders of magnitude. Yet you persist in what you want to believe, and call objective facts BS. You are the one elevating your feelings above biology.

curious2 says

A hallucination isn't "illness" if it is adaptive.

What's your point? People are hallucinating penises and vaginas on themselves? Or they are naturally evolving a penis?

Wait for it.....

HAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So wait, if I were to hallucinate a beautiful pair of DD boobs on my chest, and identified myself as non binary or female - should my ID then say non binary or female?

The answer is..... No!

Why?

Because despite my hallucinations , I am still a dude, with a penis, and my ID should reflect what I really am. Not what I WISH I were.

Come on now...

An ID should reflect reality. Not bullshit.

curious2 says

A hallucination isn't "illness" if it is adaptive.

The belief in a god may have been advantageous in the Stone Age, although more likely it was belief in many gods and supernatural beings rather than monotheism, which is a product of the state. However, belief in a god in the Nuclear Age is down right dangerous. It risks world destruction. It is no longer adaptive.

Also, one can also state as a fact that jealous rages are an evolutionary adaptive trait. If you kill a sexual rival in the Stone Age, your genes are better off. Today, that is not true. Furthermore, your genes being better off is not the same thing as you being better off, and mental health is about you, not your genes.

joshuatrio says

What's your point?

Again, you seem to have hallucinated a blank screen where there are multiple references to observable anatomy.

Also, you have yet to explain what you would gain by forcing other people to conform to your disproved assumptions. What motivates you demand they submit to your assumptions rather than their own experience? Particularly where they are anatomically non-binary, that seems the most accurate answer, yet you would empower your counter-factual feelings over the observable reality in which they live.

joshuatrio says

An ID should reflect reality.

You can keep repeating your cultural preference without justification as much as you like. That does not make a case for it.

An ID should reflect the reality of what a person looks like because that is necessary for identification. If a CIS male looks female, as most transgender CIS males do, and not at all like a female, then his ID should say transgender or non-binary so that it's easier and more accurate to identify him. That is the sole purpose of ID, to identify. You keep putting your identity politics before that.

Furthermore, you keep dodging the issue that is will be possible to perform complete sex changes in the future. That is why you refuse to address the questions I keep posing to you.

Dan8267 says

Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?

curious2 says

Yet you persist in what you want to believe, and call objective facts BS. You are the one elevating your feelings above biology.

Wrong.

Reality says that a penis still makes a dude a dude, and a vagina a woman.

Any altercation to the above makes this person a dude with a fake vagina or a chick with a fake penis. Aka: mentally ill (according to the medical community).

Dan8267 says

Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?

joshuatrio says

Reality says that a penis still makes a dude a dude, and a vagina a woman.

So you are saying that sex changes are possible and that a person born and raised with a penis can become a woman simply by transplanting his brain into a female body.

Dan8267 says

You can keep repeating your cultural preference without justification as much as you like.

This is not cultural preference. It's simple science. Dan8267 says

Dan8267 says

Let's say I clone Scarlett Johansson's body with only a brain stem. I then take Ryan Reynold's brain and transplant it into the clone's body, is Ryan now male or female and why?

This would be classified as a mutant with scarlett johanssons body with Ryan Reynolds brain.

Look, you can insert strawmen all you want, but a person born with a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.

Any objection to that is false.

joshuatrio says

a penis still makes a person a male and a vagina a female.

There are dating sites where you can find a post-op male-to-female transgendered person. After you have sex with her, ask for ID, and have this conversation in person. Otherwise, you aren't getting anywhere: mere words on a screen don't get through your bubble of hallucinations.

joshuatrio says

This would be classified as a mutant with scarlett johanssons body with Ryan Reynolds brain.

You clearly do not know what a mutation is. But even in your derogatory comment, you have just stated that there are more than two genders precisely because you have taken the position that the person is neither male nor female. Congratulations, you now have officially adopted the position of the political left. Even I wasn't expecting you to go that far left.

#lawyered

curious2 says

There are dating sites where you can find a post-op male-to-female transgendered person. After you have sex with her, ask for ID, and have this conversation in person.

No thank you!

Dan8267 says

But even in your derogatory comment, you have just stated that there are more than two genders precisely because you have taken the position that the person is neither male nor female.

Wrong again. For starters, this person doesn't exist, and if it did, it would be a science experiment, not a gender.

Dan... What gender we're you born with? How do you know?

Dan8267 says

Congratulations, you now have officially adopted the position of the political left.

Wait... You do realize that even the feminists (ya know, lefties) discredit the transgendered community...