This is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. — trixie

A good way, to start.

So basically, you met one transgender you didn't like, and decided to make a thread about all transsexuals are delusional. — trixie

Correction, I met several transgenders that didn't like me, I wasn't hostile in any case. You will know my stance if you read the thread.

Why don't you A. Tell us what you didn't like about that particular transgender person, and B tell us this supposed research you did and why your research made you come to the conclusion they were delusional. — trixie

The thing is, I'm not going to repeat myself each time someone joins the conversation, you can read this 6-pages long thread which is not that long and then contributes to the discussion, if you aren't bothering to even do that then please skip this thread altogether.

I wanted to offer a better answer than my last one and I finally found the words.
This is an argument concerning language and since language is a human invention declaring that a particular term means this or that doesn't bear the same weight as declaring that gravity is stronger on Jupiter than it is on Earth. This is a matter of physics. We didn't invent gravity, we merely observe and study it. I hope you see my point here as this applies to both gender and sex.

This is the first absolutely baseless claim we have. As I have a piece of paper in the other room from a mental health facility that has the option of 'transgender' marked under gender... This assertion of yours is absolutely false.
Contrary to what you believe, according to whatever conscious or unconscious ideology you yourself have been conditioned or, more likely, coerced into adopting; being transgender is a legitimate gender identity.
This is furthermore supported by hundreds of colleges and just about every mental health hospital or out-patient clinic you can visit in the whole United States. The reason I know this is because I have personally seen this in about 15 different states. — Blue Lux

Show us that piece of paper as apparently it contains the absolute truth and we plebians should bow down to it...

Another completely baseless claim... — Blue Lux

You can look it up, or is it too hard for you? I thought everyone was taught this at school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system

And yes, pleasure is a component of reward, but not all rewards are pleasurable. Stimuli that are naturally pleasurable, and therefore attractive, are known as intrinsic rewards, whereas stimuli that are attractive and motivate approach behavior but are not inherently pleasurable, are termed extrinsic rewards. Dopamine is very much a major part of the pleasure, if not a dominant one. Please, if you skipped over your biology classes don't go arguing with people about it.

Science cannot adequately explain how emotions work. You honestly think an anti-depressant fixes the emotions associated with depression? Do you honestly think that science has the upper hand over emotions and consciousness? Are you kidding me? — Blue Lux

Did I say that? Don't try to put words into my mouth please and you are getting overly emotional here. You completely went off-topic there, its just giving me a headache and so I skipped over it.

Ummm. And you want to be a doctor? Freud was a NEUROLOGIST. Jung was a psychiatrist and founded analytical psychology! He was one of the most important psychiatrists to ever live and if it was not for his and Freud's research then psychiatry would be impoverished today, if not non-existent! — Blue Lux

Several hundred years ago, people believed that Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics explained the whole universe. Then it was discovered that really massive objects or really fast objects or really small objects obeyed their own laws. We didn't throw out all of Newtonian Physics. But we did make those rules more accurate. Just because someone is popular doesn't make them right about absolutely everything.

ROFL, you really think you are onto something don't you?
You are absolutely wrong. Why don't you go out and ask a trans person?
TRANSPHOBIA!
You are assuming these people are idiots who were coerced into believing that they were not a man or not a woman? You honestly think something could make someone believe that other than that person themselves introspecting and identifying their own psychical disposition, in terms of their possibilities and what they want to become and be a part of, and what forms of intimacy they feel would be most fulfilling? You honestly think a transgender EXPRESSING themselves is really them hypnotized by some prior experience or upbringing? WAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. All you have are assumptions and abject idle talk. This is getting to be VERY revealing of your own personality. God knows what your sex life consists of! — Blue Lux

Okay... I think you should take your leave off this discussion. You aren't capable of being civil in a debate, I'm really regretting my decision of answering you in the first place. Whenever or not, you are being polite, I will ignore you from now on. It was a mistake as it seems the 'civilness' you showcased earlier was only enmity and scorn hidden under the veil.

My sexual life is perfectly fine, thank you. I am a virgin and I won't be anymore after marriage. Don't go making assumptions on my personal life.

apologize for insulting you but it seems that you are intransigent and do not want to take into consideration psychological dispositions that 'science' cannot adequately explain with recourse to biology. This irritates me because I have friends who are transgendered and they are not defined by the biological determinants, i.e. their facticity. — Blue Lux

That is okay as long as you offer arguments and you are not hostile, I will openly answer you.

Science can adequately explain how emotions work and which area of the brain, which chemical cause sadness, depression or happiness. We are taking steps forward in understanding how the human body works. You are assuming that science has no relation what so ever to the subject at hand, that is not the case.

Let's discard biology for a second and talk about psychological sciences. Under a completely objective view, any professor will tell you that transgenderism is a mental illness.

The only definition of an illness you could be referring to is a psychiatric illness, and I recently gave you an analysis of gender based on the thought of the most important psychiatrists of all time. You reject this. — Blue Lux

I didn't, you were insulting at the time and I completely skipped over your post. I don't even know what did you wrote there, I can't answer you if I don't understand what you are talking about in the first place.

One of the psychiatrists doesn't make him or her represent all of the psychiatrists, being someone important doesn't automatically mean that his or her work is a 'truth' that we should adhere to, especially if you don't have any proof that this psychiatrist's words that you mentioned are widely accepted or not. In fact, I can't seem to find that post, unfortunately. It would be appreciated if you could quote it in your next answer.

Trans people function just fine. There is absolutely no correlation between their being transgender and frequent stress or inability to function. There is absolutely no aetiological correlation. If you say there is... You are lying. — Blue Lux

Don't assume directly that I am lying without further information, it doesn't really help your case.
Although it seems we don't really have the same definition of what delusion is, delusion is very much a mental illness. I'll quote Harry's post. You can look it up.

I don't understand this part of your post. People aren't their gender based on feeling or body, but by the meaning of sex or gender itself? People are their sex or gender based on their physical and behavioral features. People are also delusional based on the criteria set forth by the medical community itself. People can be deluded about many things, and they don't necessarily have to have a mental condition to delude themselves. Just look at the religious folk.

People who we label as transgender don't just want to act like the opposite sex, they want to BE the opposite sex, which is why they go through sexual reassignment surgery. If it was only about gender, then they would be happy as just dressing like the opposite sex. Shouldn't we be making a distinction then, between transGENDERS and tranSEXUALS? - and is there really such thing as a transsexual when they never fully become the opposite sex - just an fake version of the opposite sex?

Do people that just dress like the opposite sex still claim that they are the opposite sex internally, or do they do it just to feel more comfortable with themselves (as a result of how they were raised and the norms that were established for them at an early age - like their parents treating them as the opposite sex)

Wanting to act like the opposite sex just reinforces the gender dichotomy - as you aren't really trying to break down the barriers between sexes - you want to BE the opposite sex.


Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition (like believing that your body is the wrong sex)

The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force, even when evidence suggests the contradictory.

That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.

Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.

The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.

There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.

An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility. They will not accept any other opinions.

The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.

The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.

The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in light of the delusional beliefs.

Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.


Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.

It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.

The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.

The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.

The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.

The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
— Wikipedia

Transgenders exhibit most, if not all, of these symptoms - especially being oversensitive about their belief and accepting it unquestioningly - similar to the religious.

Any attempt to contradict the belief is met with hostility. Society has even adopted this symptom - just look at the responses to my posts on this forum. Again - no different than the religious.

In diagnosing their condition correctly, we aren't being disrespectful to anyone, just like we aren't being disrespectful when we diagnose an anorexic correctly. We are attempting to help the patient instead of hurting them more by reinforcing their delusion to the point where the pay a doctor handsomely to cut them up. People that don't get this are inconsistent are actually the haters they label others to be. — Harry Hindu

The personality is fluid. It contains all sorts of potentialities. Consciousness is potentiality. Consciousness consists of it's relation to its potentialities. A consciousness and furthermore a personality is not defined by the expressed. — Blue Lux

We can agree on this at least, personality is molded through life experiences, it only showcases that these people went through something that caused them to develop such a delusion as to think, they are 'beyond' reality. Either through mob mentality or just some life experiences, its very much a delusion.
I'll quote Harry again since he briefly mentioned it in of his posts.

One could say that transgenders are delusional and western society has adopted the delusion and propagated it into a mass delusion to the point of verbally assaulting and labeling those that don't participate in the delusion, all while arguing that we shouldn't put labels on people. :brow: Go figure. :roll: — Harry Hindu

In relation to gender, this is the same. When you close your eyes you realize that everything you claim to be is contingent on what you think defines you, in relation to others. But the single fact is that, aside from all of this, you are something greater and that you yourself contain every identifyable condition or potentiality, and with this one can identify with their personality and understand who they are themselves, aside from the seemingly contingent nature of understanding oneself. In realizing ones absolute freedom from concepts one can be whatever the feel to be, and they can act and behave and conduct themselves in whatever manner comes about, and if this manner becomes defined by others, so be it, it is authentic. — Blue Lux

What I think defines me?

It's like trying to argue that an apple is a pineapple when everyone think otherwise and they have proof that it is not in fact a pineapple. Being rebel is good sometimes but it doesn't paint a good image of you when you are denying reality, we aren't transcending reality with some psychic powers yet I believe,
The fact is, your personality doesn't rely on basic biological truths unlike gender and sex. You yourself admitted that gender relies on sex.

You are getting a bit far, there. Humans all have the potential to do great things, of course, so? Your point? 'Accepting' oneself and becoming a transgender person is not an achievement. It's just a delusion. It's twisting the words, you are not accepting yourself, you are insecure about your gender, you are insecure in your body and you try to find something that makes you feel better, of course, then everyone needs to follow along with your twisted thinking.

they can act and behave and conduct themselves in whatever manner comes about, and if this manner becomes defined by others, so be it, it is authentic. — Blue Lux

So... You are admitting they are delusional, that what they do is not authentic because it is not acknowledged by others, those others who rely on facts, reality and not feelings.
I am not saying, they shouldn't, they can do whatever they want with their bodies. What they can't do, is impose on others to follow along with their delusions.

I am gay. In being gay I have been told that 'my condition,' as if who I am is some sort of definable, psychiatric quality that needs to be tested in a lab for the purpose of intrusive pontification, makes me more susceptible to mental illness. This relates to gender very well, as it is completely non-sequitur. It is a metaphor. — Blue Lux

You being gay is not a mental illness, throw that notion away, that's people being misinformed, it's in fact perfectly natural. Homosexuality is observed in other animals like birds, lions, and even foxes. It's not exactly a common thing in species, it leads to a dead-end in a lineage but it doesn't really matter all that much when we have seven billion people on Earth.

Homosexuality is explained scientifically as to why it happens, there is several studies about it on the internet, its really interesting look it up. Homosexuality is not bad. If lesbians or gays somewhere can find happiness, sure. Who am I to deny them that? They aren't forcing anyone to do anything, they are just a normal couple and they are completely accepting of their original gender, I can call a gay couple 'he' and I wouldn't expect any lash out or hostility unlike transgenders. I have a gay friend and he is really nice, he got a pretty handsome boyfriend and tell you what, he has the same opinions as me on transgenderism.

and I am shallow? Actually, the idea of tree and plant was from Nietsche's On Truth and Untruth, not from me. Nietzsche is shallow. — Blue Lux

And that is because you are a piece of sh$t. — Blue Lux

You are not worth my time if you continue being so hostile. There is a complete disregard of my arguments, you are openly insulting me. I don't see why I should even read your posts anymore. I will ignore you from now on.

So much for being civilized.

And you would be charged with assault. So much for being tolerant. — Akanthinos

Are you going to take it literally? I wouldn't slap anyone in reality unless they really went overboard, in this case, I"ll just call the police since there is a pervert lurking around in the women's private areas.

So much for someone entering an area that is not meant for him, that's just plain perverse, I will not tolerate something like that, should he be allowed in women's public baths too? Because he feels like a woman? No.

Look, if you are just going to comment without actual arguments, I will not take into account what you say as well.

I said it in the first line of my first post. You obviously ignored it for some reason or another. Both you and Blue Lux.

This is quite a controversial subject to most people, if you get offended easily then I politely ask of you to ignore this thread. Thank you. — Terran Imperium

Although I disagree with Terran Imperium and find them a lot less open then they claim to be, I don't think calling them those things will change anything. The same goes with @Harry Hindu. It just breeds more toxicity and doesn't change their minds. Some just want things to stay the "natural" way, even though I, as well as you it seems, see a lot of incredible good that can be had by tossing those conventions to the side. — yatagarasu

I apologize if I appeared like a close-minded bitch but when two people in a debate have a constant passive-aggressive or sometimes outright aggressive behavior, it makes one angrier than they should be and they answer in kind which I kind of did.

The best thing I can do is ignore them, I guess.

If a man can wear a dress and make-up then obviously these acts are not what it means to be a woman that transcends biology. There is no transcendental aspect to being a man or woman. It is determined by sex. Gender is simply an arbitrary set of rules for the expected behavior of the different sexes in some culture. You either follow them or you don't. The fact that we can break these rules should be evidence of this. We cannot break the rules of sex though. Once you are born a man, your body tries to revert back to a man after "sexual reassignment surgery" and is why the man has to have stents in his wound in order to prevent it from closing. — Harry Hindu

Exactly, you are so much more eloquent than me really, I don't think I could have explained it better than you just did now.

As Harry demonstrated in one of his earlier posts, they have a severe case of delusional disorder. The transgender movement is based on ideology rather than sciences. Transgenderism amounts to just playing pretend since sex change is biologically impossible. Sex can’t be reassigned because it wasn’t assigned at birth in the first place. It is a physical reality observable prenatally, the denial of which is indicative of psychological problems and often leads to further psychological distress. Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level.

Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex, They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other. They merely amount to the donning of counterfeit sexual garb.

The scientific community even got a name for this illness: Gender dysphoria (GD), or gender identity disorder (GID), is the distress a person experiences as a result of the sex and gender they were assigned at birth. In this case, the assigned sex and gender do not match the person's gender identity, and the person is transgender.

You can try to argue with science, its the goal for the overall betterment, somethings may not be absolute, its a common rule but to refute something, you need to have a proof, something tangible that everyone can understand otherwise, you are just speaking with your feelings. You cannot argue with your feelings.

Science does not produce "Truth." It produces predictive value through repeatable experiments. That's the point. Anyone can test your claims and if you did the experiment wrong, they will demonstrate it under carefully controlled conditions which minimize people's personal biases.

The scientific method can be used to disprove/discard false notions. Several hundred years ago, people believed that Classical (Newtonian) Mechanics explained the whole universe. Then it was discovered that really massive objects or really fast objects or really small objects obeyed their own laws. We didn't throw out all of Newtonian Physics. But we did make those rules more accurate. One more step forward.

Right now, we are taking steps backward rather than forward because we are accepting an illness as 'normal'.

What about linguistic gender? Why is tree masculine and plant feminine in German? What are these demarcations of knowledge?
They are arbitrary. — Blue Lux

It doesn't relate to the subject at hand at all. The comparison is shallow, you cannot compare a tree to a human in linguistic, they each have a different weight, a male would be masculine and a female, feminine. Is it hard? I'll answer for you. No.

Realism is easy to understand, it's in the name, its based on reality. On facts and logic. It doesn't always apply to everything, I truly wish it did but in this case, it applies.

And I am glad you dropped the passive-aggressiveness of your earlier posts. This one is much better.
EDIT: Although you literally just restarted that behavior a few posts after, this time with Harry. Seriously?

But language is a character performance, really. We show who we want to show, in the end. If I'm at a stripper bar in Montreal I stop using my French accent and switch to my French-Canadian backwater town lexicon. Its just safer. We all perform the language. If its too hard for you to change your performance slightly to help someone who has or has had issues that you are lucky to never have, then I dont recognize in you the same great culture that has fostered tolerance and defended human rights. — Akanthinos

Again, it's a shallow comparison, the accent doesn't relate to this at all. It has no basis in reality, unlike pronouns.

I do not particularly care about the recognition of some random joe on the Internet, I have an ID that proves I am French, I was born in France and I grew up with French people and it is my culture.

It is not, you cannot force me to change how language work nor agree to your political view. You can do all of those transgender things, it's your choice, it's your freedom to do so, but don't go imposing on people to follow along with you.

I am completely tolerant of these people as long as they don't step on my freedom of speech rights as well, human rights don't have any relation to this subject. I am not stepping on their right by calling them with the 'wrong' pronoun. What comes out of my mouth is what I want for it to come out. Regardless if you feel offended or not. People get offended every day by someone who says something that you think is inappropriate either unintentionally or intentionally. So what? A truly wise person, won't even argue and will do as a mature person will do. Ignore the person that offended you, you know that there isn't a synergy between you, so why force it? No one is forcing you to interact with that person.

So if I grow a fake pair of testicles, a phallus, I cut my hair down and say to everyone that I am male, they should accept that? Or that I can just easily enter the men's bathrooms because I am a man now?
It might not seem 'serious' because of double standards but try it the other way around with a man.
He is growing a fake pair of boobs, let his hair grow, put some make-up on and start crying out that he is female. Should he be allowed in the women's bathrooms or the women's changing rooms? I'll slap the shit out of him if he dared to do so

It's an example where transgenderism is getting way too far, we'll have so much fewer problems if they just kept it in and didn't bother people because it hurts their feelings, because they are feeling inadequate, insecure in their original sex/body. Seriously. What about non-binary people? Should their new assigned bathrooms be the dump? Or are we going to comply to their little fantasy inner-world and we're going to build entirely new bathrooms uniquely for them. And, yeah how about 32 more types of bathrooms for each gender too. If we comply now, I'm pretty sure they are going to demand that soon enough, I mean I've seen more and bolder claims everywhere right now by the feminists and the transgender people.

And here I was hoping humanity got past such things, that we were going for the betterment of our lives, of technology and science and where rational thinking rules. We are thinking of sending astronauts to Mars, to capture an asteroid, we broke through the petaflop barrier for computers, we sequenced the whole genome of a cancer patient including the tumor. And what are we doing here on Earth? Complaining about gender identities. No, seriously, no.

I wasn't thinking you were denying bodies are what they are (though you might do so if I was to talk about some intersex bodies).

My point the idea of sex you are using claims bodies are more than bodies. If I take a body, let's say one with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., your position proclaims it must belong to the sex category/sex identity of "female." It is subsuming our linguistical/conceptual/social practice of "female sex" into the body itself. You say such a body must be "female" when such a categorisation is not actually given in the existence of body.

A body with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc. might be categorised any number of ways. We might have such a body and not refer to it be a sex at all. We might categorise such a body as "male ". The body itself doesn't pose a meaning of sex itself. It will be a Y chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc., not matter which category we place it in.
A body being present doesn't suppose anything "male" or "female."

This is why people using your categories have to say: Well, that body is definitely female because XZY...". If the present of a body did suppose sex, we wouldn't have to suppose an extra understanding over the body we already know. I would be able to think: "There's a body with XX chromosomes, a womb, breasts, a vagina, etc." and understand them "female" without engaging with sex as a distinction.

Yet, sex is a distinction. It means something distinct to "there is a body with...". Sex is not contained within the body. It always remains a seperate concept/meaning. The step of placing the body in the extra meaning of "sex" has to be taken. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am sorry but you are merely playing with words there. Let's say we are talking from our perception of a door. Does that mean a door is not really a door but its a concept we impose on the object? If you understand what I mean. Sex refers to your genitalia. I don't think its that hard to understand. The split between the two definitions gender/sex is definitely not helpful as you said. It doesn't solve anything as it was supposed to in first place. It only made it worse in the end.

Gender: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

Again, look over literature regarding gender. They are different things, shown by the bolded text. The brain processing physical appearances first doesn't mean they are the same thing. It is how I can be a male (sexually) and dress/act like a women (gender). So I am taking on the physical role of a man, while taking on the social/cultural role of a women. This cannot be that confusing. — yatagarasu

It is because they depend on each other, still. The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person's biological sex (the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system) from that person's gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one's own and secondary sex characteristics. Which is your overall physical appearance. That is the definition of gender and that is the definition of sex as we know it. Do you understand what I mean, now? Gender depends on sex but sex doesn't depend on gender. Sex is a biological reality.

Feminist literature as it apparently exists doesn't get to change the meaning of words when they feel like it.

It is because you are not considering what I am saying at all nor the others as well.

You are simply wrong. — Blue Lux

Then I will not consider your words as well. If you are incapable of being respectful while discussing then I don't see why I should even bother answering you right now and not just outright ignoring you. It is a simple courtesy, if you can't do so, I will not as well. You can't seems to understand what a debate is, really.

And please, avoid double posting or in your case successive multiple posts. Why can't you put them all in one post?

Okay it'll sound bad to the ear for a while, but otherwise nothing is lost. — Akanthinos

Of course, something is lost. The integrity of a language. You do not get to change the rules of a language because it hurts your feelings, the world won't bend itself over because it hurts your feelings. So what? It's something that everyone experience and I don't see people making manifestations in the streets or asking people to change two thousand years of the history of a language just because. At some point, as I said, it is not the evolution of language that you or others are doing, its the imposition of language. It's completely two different things.

Now, tell me. Why would I accommodate them to fit their own little world? A world filled with self-delusion and lies. You are removing my freedom of speech by compelling me to call someone by what they aren't. Don't go pulling that old argument if someone wants to be called Jake but they aren't named Jake and its bullying if you do otherwise. That's completely two different things, the name Jake doesn't refer to a biological reality/physical appearance nor does it make me adhere to a particular political view because somehow I should. Really.

So what if I don't call them a 'he' or a 'she' or a 'zer'? Do I care if you feel offended because I assumed your gender? No, I don't. Nor will I change my view on the world because it doesn't adhere to your own. At least my view is based on facts, a reality that everyone can understand in time. Are you going to remove my right to have an opinion too then? Where would it stop if transgenderism starts forcing other people to call them 'zer'?

Please review feminist literature and then form your opinion on the idea of gender. Gender is not being "redefined", it is/was already defined but you don't want to accept the common definition. How is that being open minded? Physicality is not necessarily male any more than being prim and proper is intrinsically female. That is the core of many of the movements that define the norms we see as gender(s). Throughout most of history sex and gender have fit like a glove, but by definition they do not have to, and we have hit that moment in history. It is no longer as necessary to be physically fit and able to lift 100 kg as a man to survive, and it is no longer necessary to hold onto certain stereotypical ways women acted, as the end all be all. That is why the idea of gender exists, to delineate between what is physical (sex), and what is not (gender). — yatagarasu

I am sorry but I don't understand the point you are laying out here. Gender is based as much on your behavior and clothes as it is on your physical appearance. In fact, the brain process first the physical appearance to determine whenever or not you can call the person in front of you she or he. Then the rest comes after.

The sex refers to your genitalia, I don't think anyone goes around the streets checking everyone's nether area to tell whenever or not they are male or female, that's where the physical appearance enters in play, as I said.

Although the title of the video is untasteful, the man talking there Ben Shapiro lay out my view perfectly. I was looking on the internet for more information and I stumbled upon it. I don't know if it will convince you and I don't particularly care, but Mister Shapiro there made interesting points and actually explained things better than I ever could. I didn't know this man until now but he seems like a rational logical man from this video that I just saw. Its someone I would like to meet and expect an interesting eye-opening discussion in the end.

The English-speaking world could do with an Academy of English. Considering how much French was shoved down Anglo Saxon throats by W the C in an act of mass Franco-fellatio, maybe L'Académie Française could open a branch in London and New York to supervise the Francophile Contribution to English.

I'll volunteer to head up the Anglo Saxon Vocabulary Recovery Program. — Bitter Crank

That would be interesting to see actually. If I could, its something that I'll support, the study and recovery of the English language in an official institute would be beneficial to it as a whole. And it will be less likely for random people running around in the streets to add previously unknown pronouns to the language or change the foundations its based on entirely.

Yes, God forbids one shows the decency of calling people by their prefered method. I mean, where does it ends?* Will I have to call my bratty pink haired tripled nose peirced agendered cousin 'my lady' just cause zxche'll sue me if I dont?

* A fine exemple of a slippery-slope fallacy.

Et bordel de merde, si tes capable de comprendre qu'une table est au feminin en langue de Voltaire, tu devrais pas avoir trop de misere avec l'idee d'appeler un mec 'elle'.

For those cursed with a lack of frogspeak, this translate to 'and bordello of crap, if you can learn to use the feminine for a table, in french, you should be able to wrap your head around the idea of calling a man 'she' '. — Akanthinos

Il me semble que vous etes incapable de comprendre la langue française. Ce que vous etes en train de me demander, en comparaison est d'utiliser le pronon masculin pour une table. 'le table' 'un table'. Cela n'a absolument aucun sense! Un homme est un homme, et une femme est une femme. C'est aussi simple que ça! Je ne vais pas utiliser le pronon féminin 'elle' pour un homme.

Et par rapport aux autres? Ceux qui se considère non-binaire? On utilise quel pronon? Faut comprendre a quel point vous etes entrain d'écrire des stupidités qui franchement me remplit de stupéfaction.

---------------------

It seems to me that you are unable to understand the French language. What you are asking me in comparison is to use the male pronoun for a table, 'une table' is the correct one, not 'un table'. It has absolutely no sense! A man is a man, and a woman is a woman. It's that simple! I will not use the pronoun 'elle' for a man.

And compared to others? Those who consider themselves non-binary? Which pronoun should be used? You have to understand that the stupidities that you are writing are amazing me to a point I can't describe.

That something is a statistical anomaly (or seems to be) has not bearing on wether or not its relevant to the subject at hand. If there is a third, fourth and fifth gender, and that each totals only 0.0001% of the living population, you don't get to erase them from existence simply because you dislike SJWs on the internet.

That you describe intersex people as "ill" or "deficient" is pretty telling. Your lack of empathy and sophistication should in itself be considered a deficiency and an illness. — Akanthinos

I will ignore you from now on as you seem incapable of formulating a proper argument and is trying to find an opportunity to politely call me in more sophisticated words, ignorant and cold. Good try, better than the last one at least.

A few questions: Are you calling them delusional in their transgender-ism or in their support of the concept of gender through their transgender-ism? Sex and gender are not the same thing. When they reference their preferred pronouns they are asking (not enforcing) that you pay attention to their gender not their sex. That is why they are transgender, not transsexual. — yatagarasu

That is running around the question in the first place, most transgender people run through a few surgeries to grow breasts and other such female traits in the case of a transgender woman. In fact most transgender people that I met tell me that there is no difference between gender and sex and that thinking otherwise is me adhering to this:

"Which is basically biological essentialism, a wonderful set of beliefs possessed off by many groups, of which one of note is the Trans-exclusionary radical feminists.

You don't want to be confused for a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist."

Apparently. Now I didn't even know there was that many types of feminists and its just giving me a headache while thinking about it. And I don't want to be called a feminist, oh hell no.

My opinion on them is that they are delusional but I won't go in the streets to drag them to mental hospitals. My problem comes from those that demand of people to accept their ideologies and name them by their incorrect pronoun or a new martian pronoun or something. Nowadays, a transgender woman can call abuse for using the 'wrong' pronoun.

I don't agree with the way they are thinking they can mold the current definition of gender which is how you behave, your clothes and your physical appearance. It doesn't change their facial structure which is masculine and I obviously have the impulse to use 'he' instead of 'she'. Growing longer hair, shaving your leg hair doesn't make you a woman in my book. While now gender and sex are two different things, they still depend mainly on each other. The fact that you may have male genitalia or female ones affect your physical appearance more than you can imagine. In fact most of them, they are so fake and underwent so many surgeries, it hurts on the eyes to look at them sometimes.

I am so glad that transgenderism is mostly limited to the English countries, I really had a bad experience going there because of the few transgender people and feminists that I met there and their talk about pronouns.

A bit of linguistic talk. In my country, France, we obviously speak French and there isn't in our language a gender-neutral pronoun. 'il' means 'he', 'elle' means 'she'. When we use the plural as its 'ils' or 'elles'. And if that group of people we are talking about is made out of men and women, we just revert back to the standard 'ils'. And our adjectives are so gender-based on a binary system that if you wanted to change that, you'll have to take down the whole French language and start it from anew.

In fact, we have 'L'Académie Française' which is an institution founded in 1634, their goal is to normalize and perfect the French language. They are the guys who decide what gets in a french dictionary or not, and they are the ones who can decide whenever or not a word or verb or anything really can be considered 'French' officially.

Shoes are less contentious. If you were a man and wore dresses the situation would be much different. — MindForged

It is indeed. Its a common double standard in favor of women, unfortunately. Another example is, old women, oiling up a handsome young muscled man is good but old men oiling up a hot and fit young woman is creepy. I noticed that even in my mind it sounded creepy while I thought the former one is not but when you compare them... It's different and it change your perspective, it makes you take a step back and think about it for a second. It actually gives me chills by how societal biases affect my way of thinking on a day to day basis even when I'm considering myself to be an objective and logical person.

But that's another issue on its own that is not related to the main subject here. Not related in any relevant way to transgenderism at least. Maybe to feminism but I noticed that the subject was more focused on transgenderism than feminism, actually.

I didn't talk about attitudes or personality. I brought up more tangible things: how people dress according to how their society deems appropriate for their gender (colors and style, for example), bodily features that are usually associated with a particular biological sex but aren't exclusive to it, the kind of norms (especially social) we apply to particular genders. — MindForged

Thank you since you provided me an actual argument here. The thing is my point still apply here if I'm wearing Jordans, it doesn't mean I'm telling people I am male! It's just a fashion preference.

The tomboy comparison isn't sufficient here. I've a transwoman whose a friend of mine who's a music professor. She used to tell me how she knew she was different since she was a kid for various reasons: she preferred to play with "girl toys", she would take every opportunity to dress and act like a woman, and had visceral reactions to depictions of herself in typically male dress and such. She wasn't delusional, she had (and still has, if less so) gender dysphoria. She wasn't delusional, it's just her gender identity does not match what is expected from her sex.

Short of presupposing that she is inherently wrong for being the way she is, I don't see what the argument is here. Perhaps some people go too far in their views about sex and gender. I don't know, I don't personally have a great deal of interest in it. But the core of it seems extremely plausible unless we make arbitrary moral assumptions and completely disregard people's experience despite hat experience playing a crucial role in how they view and act with respect to the gender they have. — MindForged

I apologize in advance if I am offending you or your friend in the following words.

I don't think I can change your opinion on whenever transgenderism is delusional or not. I have nothing against your friend as long as he does not go force people to agree with his thinking or his way pronouns should work. I hear often the argument that it is the 'evolution' of language. It is not. That is the imposition of language.

I am aspiring to be a doctor and my view is set upon reality, upon science. To me, transgender people are delusional, not everyone will agree with me, of course, but objectively with the behavior that I saw with my eyes, the numerous ones in social media. They are delusional. I did not meet your friend nor did I talk to him, and I can't make an objective statement on him if I didn't see him. All of the behaviors that feminists and transgender people exhibited pointed to such a decision on my view on them. If he exhibits the same behavior, then he may be delusional, otherwise its just a harmless fantasy.

Bloody christ you are arguing from ignorance. Intersex and androginy are real things. — Akanthinos

Those are what you call an exception. People with DSD or hermaphrodite persons does not constitute a third sex. You do not use exceptions as a generalization. It's a genetical deficiency, you do not use an illness as a general truth.

Calling me an ignorant without providing a sufficient argument doesn't sell your point and only undermine it actually. I talked about this earlier if you had bothered to read a three pages long thread. Which is not that long by the way, if you want to participate in a discussion, you should read all the arguments and debate that was provided and discussed earlier. Otherwise, you are making a fool out of yourself.

To treat this as a simple issue, well, your initial post makes it clear you don't understand the basics of the topic at hand. You may have been insulted by whoever (I don't care honestly), but you are probably partly to blame if you acted as you did in your OP. Calling transgender people delusional, calling people you disagree with delusional, using dictionary definitions over the definitions used in academia. These do not endear you to anyone, it would piss me off if this was how you started your other discussion because it doesn't even meet the minimum of niceties one expects in discussions. — MindForged

It wasn't how I started the discussion, it wasn't even the main subject of our discussion and I barely mentioned it in a few words in 300 words long post, they only nitpicked that and started a heated debate that I didn't want anything in.

A woman can behave with a manly attitude, that's what people call a tomboy. Do you know the difference between a tomboy and a transgender man? I think you understand what I mean here. I won't go into detail but you are blurring the line between a woman with a bit of a manly personality with someone who is pretending and trying to make other people agree in the fact she is a man. That is unacceptable and it is what I was talking about

That reveals a rather striking lack of imagination. You could have 17 genders if all of them had a different historical basic function toward reproduction and gestation. There is absolutely nothing which demands that it gender be binary, other then the convenience and usefulness of it being so. — Akanthinos

Look, you can't. It's a biological reality. There aren't 17 genders, It's a fact that you can't change, it's how humanity is built and more than a few species actually.

Of course you can. The patient may not like it, it may not be legal, it's very bad manners, but it is definitely possible. — Bitter Crank

That's just jumping around the context of my words.

Of course you can. Anyone can "pretend" anything. The audience may not believe the fakery, the fakery may not be performed very well, and one may not be rewarded for one's efforts, but it is possible. — Bitter Crank

Same here. Of course, my choice of word might have been poor. Although as I said the context of my words were pretty clear about that.

One of the phenomena we are confronted with a lot these days is excessive sensitivity to real or imagined slights, an epidemic of narcissism, and extremely inflexible ideology. So you have people whose ideology (feminism, just one of several) is very reactive. They are always set to go off when stepped on (like land mines), and their bellyaching is amplified in an echo chamber.

Of course it's possible for a man to imagine he is a woman, and visa versa. If they are good actors, he can fake it convincingly. Ditto for women who imagine they are men. I say, "Go right ahead. Imagine what you want, and if you can pull it off, you can act as if your fantasies are real. If you can't, people will just laugh at you. If you are an interesting person (whatever else you are) I'll be polite--I might even want to be your friend. What I won't do is join the show. I'm not going to pretend that you are actually a woman. If you have a penis, testicles, beard, xy chromosomes, and so on--all in working order, you can go to a chop shop and get remodeled, take estrogen, get your breasts enlarged, change your hair, wardrobe, etc. and you may look just like a woman. But to me you are still a man, (and visa versa if you are a woman imagining herself to be a man). — Bitter Crank

This is something I agree with completely and it's an opinion I support.

As I said earlier, I'm not one of the best persons around to talk to people, I prefer to be objective and logical generally which make an 'inhuman cold bitch' to most people, apparently. Its unfortunate but I can't please everyone and act nicely as in lying to them. Saying the truth might be harsh or rude sometimes but its just the truth, a fact. It doesn't care about your feelings and I certainly don't care either if you are trying to dispute it by your feelings.

And, by this definition trans-genderism is the matter of somebody's personal self-identification. Both definitions open a way for changing gender. But what about "no gender"? — Number2018

That is obviously not possible. You are either female or male. You can't be something in between or a third weird gender, especially as we humans are a mammalian species. There are only two genders. Its a fact that cannot change.

If you look around I talked in one of my posts about how gender and sex were perfectly interchangeable until transgender people came along and separated the definitions. Sex now refer to your biological sexual organs and gender is a social construct since it determine whenever you are being feminine or masculine. I don't really mind this change, its just doesn't really affect me nor my everyday life in anyway.

I am more concerned about the points I layed out in the posts above.

This is your post I was responding to. I can understand being annoyed by people who, uninvited, knock on your door to declaim something or another, or who insult you on the Internet. So, I suggested that's what you found objectionable, not the fact they're transgender or feminist. But, your last response to me was to the effect that my suggestion was inaccurate. If that's the case, though, it would seem we may infer that you do, indeed, find it objectionable that people are transgender or feminist.

That's unfortunate, but it's not their problem, nor should you make it a problem for them. — Ciceronianus the White

What I meant is, the initial subject is as to why they come knocking at my door and as to why I was insulted in the first place. It all comes down back to feminism and transgenderism and their ideologies which I don't particularly agree with and their intrusive nature when I didn't ask for it in those cases.

I understand if its just a misunderstanding, it happens sometimes but I think I layed out pretty much what I meant in my opening post and the ones following after it.

It is a problem from my point of view but I won't go whining about it nor crying out in the roof of my house like they do. There is a common rule among doctors is that you can't force a treatment down a patient's throat. The patient has the right to refuse to be treated and so are the transgender people and the feminists. There is a reason they are around on the news everywhere. Because they can't stop making a problem out of everything and it's annoying the hell out of me and everyone generally.

If we followed common sense, those people should already be in mental hospitals to be treated for their mental illness. You can't pretend to be something when you aren't, that's just lying to yourself, wait a few hundred years until we can somehow change our biological sex at will then you can start whining that people are certainly using the wrong pronoun when talking to you.

Then it would seem what you found offensive was the fact they knocked on your door saying things you thought stupid, and insulted you on the internet, not the fact they were transgender or feminist. Why bring up gender ideology, or feminism in that case? — Ciceronianus the White

Here is the thing since you seem incapable of understanding the context of my words. I spoke in my first post why I was insulted on the internet in the first place. It revolves around the transgender and the feminist movement. I started this discussion to understand them better and lay out my way of thinking and my view on them if you read my first posts, you will see what I am talking about.

Running around the pot doesn't help your case, here.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

You have way to many false premises for me even to begin. — Blue Lux

You fatalistic, abject muppet! — Blue Lux

Prove that the hyle's existence and authenticity is the result of a neural impulse

Faith is all you have! — Blue Lux

In other words... The aetiological state of affairs based on this abstraction necessitates this abstraction delivering us to the conclusion that this abstraction is a truthful abstraction.
What a truth you have ascertained! — Blue Lux

I will not answer someone who doesn't seem capable of formulating a proper argument. I think if you reword it more politely and in a way everyone can understand, people then might consider you words. Otherwise, you are just making a fool out of yourself.

Ah. So if we merely treat them as we would anyone else, we encourage them. Yes, that makes sense. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, it is harmful when you are treating someone with mental disillusions, normally, or in a more extreme example, treating a murderer, normally. Its a denial of the reality in front of them. Certainly when they demand of people to use previously unknown pronouns for their unique person. What a level of pretentiousness and ego. I will not change my language to fit someone's delusional world nor agree with their political view.

Its as if people are questioning the fact they are born in X year instead of Y year. If people are really seriously questioning something like that, something is wrong with them. That is the same thing for people questioning why were they born as a male/female and explicitly wanting to change it. You can't, you can only pretend to. You were born in X year but you can pretend you were born in Y year, you were born as a male but you can pretend you are now female, cool but don't go and demand of people to agree with your delusions.

So what if they are offended if I call someone a 'he' instead of a 'she' or from some alien pronoun like 'zer'. Is that person going to implode or something? Getting offended by something or someone say is a fact of life that will always happen somehow. If you are happy in your own little world don't go bothering other people with it.

Here is my final say on the matter. Changing your gender is your business. Trying to implement a new way of speech is unacceptable. My problem lies with the fact that people want me to be punished for not using the lingo they demand I use. That is fascism, that is control over another's speech.

A quote that fits this subject.

"We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone." - From George Orwell's 1984.

I can't help but feel that controversies of this kind arise from our regrettable tendency to disturb ourselves over matters which are not in our control. Sometimes, that tendency expresses itself in a desire to control or efforts to control that which properly speaking is not in our control, or condemn those who are not in our control for doing things which are not in our control. We should stop doing this sort of thing, I think, and as the saying goes mind our own goddamn business. Yes, I invoke the wisdom of the Stoics here, though I doubt they characterized that wisdom in quite this way. Perhaps they should have.

If it causes no harm to others, it shouldn't matter that X is biologically male or female but identifies otherwise. We may think it odd or strange or even wrong, but we must resign ourselves to the fact that we can't make others do or think as we please, and shouldn't try to, unless harm will result, and not merely harm to our sense of what's proper. If there are circumstances where it may cause harm, deal with those situations as they may arise to prevent harm. There are ways to address such things intelligently. We shouldn't make decisions, however, based on such concerns as--"what will happen if some bird-man wants us to pay his medical bills?" — Ciceronianus the White

If you read my previous posts more carefully, you'll notice that I didn't particularly care nor put much attention to the transgender people or the feminists until the later comes knocking on my door spouting stupidities and the former insulting me on the internet. No one would dedicate time to talk about a subject they aren't concerned about or doesn't affect them in any way. I'll be pretty stupid and hateful if I despised those people for no reason what so ever.


Most of your speech is confusing, to be honest. I understand this is a philosophical forum but speaking like that doesn't help much on selling your point and argument. For the few parts that I suppose I understood, I'll answer.

When you reach an orgasm, it produces dopamine. Dopamine is in a way the motivator of the body, its what makes you wake up to go to work, to go eat something or to accomplish a particular goal. Dopamine. When you reach an orgasm, it produces over 200% over the average dopamine your body contains on a daily basis. Drugs do the same by stimulating your brain and producing over 300%, although the difference between those two is that the body's dopamine level get gradually lower over time so that 200% stay there for a few hours at least while with drugs the 300% levels of dopamine stay there for only a few minutes at best. That's why it's so addictive.

That's where the thirst for pleasure comes from. And the brain always wants some more of it.

Pleasure doesn't keep parents together as you say, if they so wished to, they can have sexual pleasure with another person. What's really keeping them together, that's some other chemicals entering into play that I'm not going to go into details on but basically those chemicals aren't produced as much after they birthed a child or more, its because the body deemed its initial purpose of perpetuating the human species as done. That means divorce rates go up after having children, yes.

You raised interesting questions, some answers and examples. And yes I do view the mind and body to be one single entity. They are one part of another.

If they could alter their genetic code then my argument has no value. They are completely female or male regardless of what was their previous gender. I am not against that. I am not against change. But currently, we can't do that. And biologically, they are still female or male.

I think I determined my view on them. I don't specifically despise them but I was more than confused about their way of thinking. It was enlightening. Thank you.

I understand your argument but I think you might have missed the part where I acknowledged that and I was obviously the mistaken one. I won't call them by what they think is the wrong pronoun because that would be rude, I only considered the biological reality and that may have been my mistake.

As for whenever or not it harms society, it does not. Transgenderism itself cannot harm society. However, a few months ago, I had a neutral opinion about them but the few that I talked about, they were infuriating and irrational and more than a few time they took an aggressive stance when I tried to return back to the original subject. The original subject had no relation what so ever about genders, I barely mentioned it in a 500 words long post. Yet, they only picked up that part and started arguing with me, I couldn't understand.

I spoke with a few more transgender people in real life and they were just as aggressive. I can't say I can project the few that I talked with into their whole community. That would be stupid and narrow-minded but it didn't really paint a good image on them nor the ones in social media do. Is it harmful? No, but it just fills my everyday life with a subject I don't care about, that I don't want to hear about and I kept dragged in it because they feel that I was offending them in some way or another or that I should agree with them.

More than a few people said I was cold because I was considering science and rationality to be above all else. But its just who I am, I can't really change who I grew up to be as a woman. I came here to discuss the subject and to get a few more opinions. I came to an interesting conclusion. And I was wrong about more than a few things. I hope this will help me understand them more and avoid aggressive talk next time, I encounter one.

Again thank you.

Exactly. Now I did a little more research to satisfy my curiosity and set my final personal judgement on these people if they are crazy or not.


So let's go back to the start so that there is no confusion. An argument about transgender identities will be much more convincing if it concerns who someone is, not merely how someone identifies. And so the rhetoric of the transgender moment drips with ontological assertions: People are the gender they prefer to be. That’s the ideology. That's what Transgenderism is all about and what it preach.

So as I said earlier. Transgender activists don’t admit that this is a metaphysical claim. They don’t want to have the debate on the level of philosophy, so they dress it up as a scientific and medical claim. And they’ve co-opted many professional associations for their cause. Which I mentioned one of them earlier, I believe.

The phrase “sex assigned at birth” is now favored because it makes room for “gender identity” as the real basis of a person’s sex. So here comes the next part, more like its the main part.

In a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. Dr. Deanna Adkins who works in Duke University School of Medicine said this: “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

Its funny because the argument recently was that gender is only a social construct, while sex is a biological reality. Now, activists claim that gender identity is destiny, while biological sex is the social construct.

Adkins doesn’t say if she would apply this rule to all mammalian species. But why should sex be determined differently in humans than in other mammals? This is really confusing.

This is really ridiculous at this point. I feel like my head is spinning. The more I look up information about Transgenderism the more my opinion about them only get lower and lower. These people have no basis on reality and contradict themselves a lot.

So far, I was convinced that I might have been unecessarly rude to them by using the 'wrong' pronun but that's not much. Althought it was still an interesting discussion with you and the different opinions were insightful.

Thank you for your answer.

Again, thank you for answering my questions.
I can argue the fact that none of those names don't refer or are in anyway related to any ideological view unlike someone especially asking me to call 'they' when they are obviously a 'she' or a 'he'. That's being needlessly stubborn and rude however and I concur.
I can use the pronoun 'they' without agreeing to any of their ideological ideas. It's not the first time for not only this subject and its called being polite to other people.
That's better than being rude like I was before.

I am sorry for the late answer.

My condoleances.
I said that exceptions don't really count, they are true women. There is a reason, they are called exceptions and that they aren't used as standards.

That is true, I agree and I can't say much against that.
About the pronouns, I was referring to the 'non-binary' people which I mentioned earlier in my post. Whereby forcing people to call them 'they' or 'she' or 'he' when it doesn't fit them is like forcing me to agree with their view on how the world works. Yes, language evolves and change through the centuries but it still had a basis on reality. The pronouns 'he' and 'she' rely on your biological sex, on a fact everyone can rely on. If a person who thinks she is 'non-binary' and I called her 'she' or 'he' does that make me bad? As I said those people are more subjective than objective and don't really look at reality.

Please bear in mind that before somewhere in the 80's, Sex and Gender were perfectly interchangeable. They meant the same thing. It was not until the mid-1990s that use of the term gender began to exceed use of the term sex in American Physiological Society titles. That's where the difference really started to show and Transgenderism used it.
Although I have nothing against Gay people, someone can be Gay and keep the gender identity he or she was born with. Homosexuality is proven to be natural anyway, there is observed homosexual behavior between chimpanzees and lions or birds.

Yes, it is an unfortunate trend this time. Feminists and now Transgenderisms.

As an interesting fact, scientists are making progress on how homosexuality work biologically. I can't find the article on it, unfortunately. If I recall correctly it was a hormone that spikes at a specific time when the baby is in the womb which determines their sexuality through their whole life.

Thank you all for your answers, it was enlightening and offered me much insight on how to interact with those people.

Although there is still something I am confused about when I was talking with that trans-gender woman, I did my research about Transgenderism so I can ask my questions here but I was caught off guard by his words when I said that Gender and Sex are different things. I think he said I was a feminist of some genre?
To quote:
"Which is basically biological essentialism, a wonderful set of beliefs possessed off by many groups, of which one of note is the Trans-exclusionary radical feminists.

You don't want to be confused for a Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist."