Apparently you've came to a conclusion that affirms your biases

So desperate to virtue signal.. — emancipate

It's not virtue signalling to object to some of the comments in this thread. Whether any of them break the rules is another issue and something we're looking into.

I think we can draw a distinction between the question of whether transsexuals should be fully respected and embraced in our community and whether the current surgical procedures available to them are efficacious. I would consider rejection of transsexuals based upon moral grounds inappropriate. They, sort of like everyone else here, are people too.

So, the question then seems to hinge upon whether the surgery does what the doctors say it will and whether the recipients are satisfied with their decision. To the extent someone undergoes gender reassignment surgery fully aware of the risks and rewards and they are satisfied with the results, I can't see how anyone would have standing to object.

If you scoff at a man in a mini-skirt and find the visual absurd and laughable, just admit to that bias and stop with the talk about whether this or that cosmetic procedure is or isn't reasonable. The truth is that the acceptability of women in mini-skirts and men not is a social custom of no ethical consequence. The fact that a woman can wear men's slacks and that not be considered degrading, humiliating, or sexually deviant is all social construct and has nothing to do with nature or morality.

This is all to say that unless you have a real moral reason why men must act as traditional men and women as traditional women and all you wish to do is remind us of your adherence to traditional Western mores, then what else do you have to add to this conversation other than telling us of the obvious complications that accompany various surgical procedures?

...then what else do you have to add to this conversation other than telling us of the obvious complications that accompany various surgical procedures? — Hanover

Complications? Yeah I'd say it's pretty damn complicated to do the impossible.

but the thread is filled with negative attitude towards transgenders. — pfirefry

I don't believe anyone can change sex or that anyone should be able to legally be declared the opposite sex because I value truth, facts and reality.

I cannot change my evidence based beliefs due to peoples feelings and their desire to impersonate the opposite sex.

You can silence me on the internet but not change the way I perceive the facts of reality about the immutability of biological sex. Why not try and defend trans ideology rather than attack the tone of the thread?
Trans advocates have successfully censored numerous people on twitter and YouTube and got governmental support and institutional capture and this one place where can can freely give our opinions.

Forcing people believe in trans identities is like forcing people to believe in someone else's religion.

No one should be forced to endorse your beliefs about your self or compromise their own values for someone's self perception.

This thread is an utter nonsense. — pfirefry

Then refute some of the points being made. This is a philosophy forum for presenting arguments.

People express negative attitudes towards the minorities. — pfirefry

Being in a minority is not a protected or virtuous status. Serial killers are a minority.

I am not attacking a minority just not believing an ideology. There are lots of different people using the trans label including nonbinaries and a-sexual's and they don't even agree amongst themselves about definitions.

The so called "truscum" (not my name for them) believe you have suffer from gender dysphoria and have surgeries to be classed as true trans but other like Eddie Izzard believe you simply have to identify as the opposite sex to earn your preferred pronouns and enter women's spaces.

Transsexualism and transvestitism is an elaborate sexual masquerade--and certainly not the only sexual and non-sexual masquerade which humans perform. But let's stay honest: A man wearing a dress (even if an artificial vagina has been created) is still a masquerading man. A woman wearing a beard and a suit (even if an artificial penis has been created) is still a masquerading woman. — Bitter Crank

Actually, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female, so all men are not men but masquerading women. We've both got frick'n nipples for Christ's sake! We can even lactate.

The question for 'gay liberation' is more a matter of what gay people have given up to gain acceptance and the 'normality' of heterosexual-type family life. — Bitter Crank

What have they given up?

Tom Storm expressed support towards transgender people, and got criticized with a dumb argument that being transgender equals to a specific set of extreme examples. That's a gross generalization, and it's a clear example of inappropriate transphobia.

Andrew said: You support thousands of young women including teenage girls having healthy breasts removed, the indoctrination of children, undermining women's rights, the existence of 100 genders and so on. — pfirefry

What extreme examples are you referring to? I have highlighted several cases of people having gender affirmation surgeries that ruined their health. Most trans "women" don't have their penis inverted and castration (70-90 + percent.) Those that do usually have complications.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvzpy8/sex-reassignment-surgery-india-trans-death

"Days before her death, Alex told a media outlet called The Cue that she became a victim of “gross medical negligence” during her gender confirmation surgery in June 2020 at a private hospital called Renai Medicity. “My private part looks like a piece of meat,” she said in a video interview. “I want to conduct a resurgery. I want justice.”

Lia Thomas has undermined all women's right to a fair sporting arena.

Thousands of young women on just giving asking for money to remove breasts is not an extreme example it is the new norm and a historical anomaly.

I feel Your only object here is to get people censored. No trans identified person is being forced to read this thread.

No one is unhappy about surgeons in general, or the government, or about straight people who endanger their bodies to accentuate their sex. Straight men ruin their bodies with steroids. Straight women overdo plastic surgeries and suffer from bulimia. No one has expressed their disapprovement of straight people, — pfirefry

Lots of people are unhappy with botched surgeries and people who have cosmetic surgeries are often criticised and the surgeons condemned as unethical. Most people want to avoid surgery and medication wherever possible and don't want to become life long patients.

I personally do not believe trans people exist because I don't believe you can transition from one sex to another or one gender to another. I disapprove of people trying to make me believe they were either born in the wrong body, have changed sex, deserve to be treated as the opposite sex and a range of other beliefs under the trans umbrella. This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states.

If there was no trans activism or trans ideology this combative situation wouldn't have a risen but people are trying to force other people to share their false and delusional beliefs about sex and gender. People are being interviewed by the police for "misgendering people on line" and being fired from jobs for thought crimes/not being rehired.

Unfortunately. I think on top of the untold harm that has already happened we have many more years of this. No Frankenstein surgeons or, academic ideologs or trans advocates will be held accountable.

This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states. — Andrew4Handel

Surely you're not this dense though and you realize that your mental state is not formed a priori. What that means is that there is no pre-societal norm for what constitutes male versus female behavior. That you cut your hair a particular way, wear particular clothes, engage in certain societal roles, and do whatever it is that you think is male oriented behavior is not something that exists outside societal dictates. It is not inherently morally right or wrong to act like a red, white, and blue American girl or boy. It's just a social norm for the here and now.

What this means is that if I live in a society where the social norm is for men to wear pants and not skirts, then that ideology is forced upon me. I am forced to share the mental state of that community. You can't claim a trans person is imposing her beliefs on you anymore than you are trying to force your beliefs on her. All you can say is that the two of you have different world views, neither of which are more moral than the other.

The big difference however between you and the trans person is that your norms dominate society and you've never been asked to consider any views other than your own. Well, today is a new day and your norms are no longer implicitly accepted.

What a happy world it was when everyone thought and acted just like you. The good old days, right?

What this means is that if I live in a society where the social norm is for men to wear pants and not skirts, then that ideology is forced upon me — Hanover

I disagree with this analogy obviously. I don't think most men look good in women's clothes. Women's clothes are designed for the reality of women's bodies and their feminine appearance. Some women look better in less feminine clothes.

I wear what feels comfortable and am glad that sensible looking clothes are available.

There is a difference between someone wearing women's clothes to deceive someone into thinking they are female and someone wearing feminine clothes to conform or not conform.

I would certainly not deny society operates by force. You won't get another argument out of my on that but at the same time we can reject societies ideals in our head and reject society without being told that we cannot even disagree with a societal norm. Saying I have to call a man "she" is undermining my evidence based logically formed beliefs.

Anyhow. There is a difference between societal norms and biological facts. A woman is a biological immutable reality with a womb, ovaries and in whom we all grew as babies, not a societal trend. A woman is not a cervix haver or people carrier. It is not an imposition to state biological reality.

I went bald in my mid twenties and have never attempted to rectify that. I was born with undescended testes and then I discovered I only actually had one testicle and that has since went back up inside my body leaving me with an empty scrotum. (I Don't no whether I am infertile). I mainly hung around with girls in primary school/kindergarten and I don't like sport and mechanics or guns. I am hardly a male stereotype or rampant conformist.

However if you conform to the latest fashions and standards for men and women it doesn't usually entail self harm or body modification/mutilation.

The only way you can say trans ideology is harmless is if you say any harm is automatically negated by the mental state of a trans person. So allowing a man to beat women in swimming is no longer a harm because it increases the overall good feeling in a trans persons brain. It is insane and it is being forced on us. I grew up in a religious cult I am well versed in brainwashing and psychological manipulation.

Reread the articles and links to the extreme distress people face after having genital mutilation. I can provide loads more links and don't ask me to accept this. Fistulas, adhesions, UTI's arterial bleeds etc

There is a difference between someone wearing women's clothes to deceive someone into thinking they are female and someone wearing feminine clothes to conform or not conform. — Andrew4Handel

They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. Unless they wish to date you, they can dress as they want, or does just the thought of their dress piss
you off?

A woman is a biological immutable reality with a womb, ovaries and in whom we all grew as babies, not a societal trend. A woman is not a cervix haver or people carrier. It is not an imposition to state biological reality. — Andrew4Handel

But appearances are changeable, and so a man that wants to look like a woman can do that and she can call herself "she" and her friends can do that as well, and you can cross your arms and refuse, and they can call you a dick and you can say "fine," and they can say "fine" back. That's where this goes. I'm just wondering why that's your preference.

I went bald in my mid twenties and have never attempted to rectify that. I was born with undescended testes and then I discovered I only actually had one testicle and that has since went back up inside my body leaving me with an empty scrotum. (I Don't no whether I am infertile). I mainly hung around with girls in primary school/kindergarten and I don't like sport and mechanics or guns. I am hardly a male stereotype or rampant conformist. — Andrew4Handel

Thanks for telling me about your nads. Mine are bold and made of brass. A true sight to behold.

So allowing a man to beat women in swimming is no longer a harm because it increases the overall good feeling in a trans persons brain. It is insane and it is being forced on us. I grew up in a religious cult I am well versed in brainwashing and psychological manipulation. — Andrew4Handel

You are aware it's possible to be supportive of the trans community without supporting trans MtF competing in biological female sports?

And sorry about your cult experience. I'm getting a lot of side info here in not sure what to do with. Maybe harness those feelings of being an outsider and empathize with others who feel ostracized. I'm just asking you appreciate you're attacking not some massive political force trying to command your thoughts, but what you're actually doing is beating up on our most vulnerable and fragile.

Reread the articles and links to the extreme distress people face after having genital mutilation. I can provide loads more links and don't ask me to accept this. Fistulas, adhesions, UTI's arterial bleeds etc — Andrew4Handel

You've read the horror stories and have decided you wouldn't have this surgery done regardless of how you identify. That's a fair call, but not everyone is like you and others choose otherwise. Why do you get to choose for them?

They seek no gain from making you believe they're a woman. — Hanover

Yes they do. If I want to make people believe I was in the twin towers on 9/11 I want to implant a false belief about me in peoples mind.

People get gratification arousing responses in other people. Isn't that the whole point of wanting to be a celebrity?

Reading on trans subreddits and elsewhere people clearly need almost everyone to affirm their identity whereas I don't need anyone to affirm my identity and you will not find me asking you to believe or affirm anything about myself.
Sometimes my nieces and nephews call me aunty probably because they have one uncle (alive) and 5 + aunties.
A personal identity that needs validating by everyone else is unstable in my opinion.

You are aware it's possible to be supportive of the trans community without supporting trans MtF competing in biological female sports? — Hanover

Caitlyn Jenner has spoken out against biological men in women's sports and he has been derided as a transphobe on trans subreddits likewise any other trans person who doesn't agree.

The point about sports and acting awards and the like is that calling a man legally a woman entitles him to compete with women in this sphere. Otherwise if you don't let these men in women's, sports, prisons and acting competitions you are essential acknowledging they aren't women.

Only a few trans people have spoken out in favour of limiting men's access to spaces and awards but most of these still want access to some women's spaces like toilets.

Thanks for telling me about your nads. Mine are bold and made of brass. A true sight to behold. — Hanover

This response suggests you are not really interested in real peoples real identities over pandering to an touchy feely (as portrayed) ideology. Just because people didn't identify under the attention seeking gender umbrella doesn't mean they are all virile confident stereotypical members of some stupid cis gender identity forced on us by the gender religion, with perfect lives and bodies.

Accepting your biological sex reality does not say anything about you other than that you are in touch with one aspect of reality. Do we support acknowledging reality or not?

Maybe harness those feelings of being an outsider and empathize with others who feel ostracized. — Hanover

What feelings of being an outsider?

You just randomly introduced that sentiment to me.

Being in a minority does not make someone an outsider.

Everyone is is some kind of minority but socialise based on shared human traits. Indulging someone else's delusions is not my idea of embracing someone into the human fold.

I have being wondering about starting a separate thread on enforced beliefs for months now. But if I do the point is very important philosophically.

I agree with Descartes that the only thing I can't doubt is my own existence. So any other belief I formulate is going to be constantly subject to scrutiny and scepticism.

Legally making me call a male a female and vice versa or lose my job is anathema to this. It is a good reason to oppose censorship.

You've read the horror stories and have decided you wouldn't have this surgery done regardless of how you identify. That's a fair call, but not everyone is like you and others choose otherwise. Why do you get to choose for them? — Hanover

Society should have a say in medical ethics.

Society should have a say in medical ethics. — Andrew4Handel

What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?

This study of 214 patients evaluated 20 years after their surgery states, "One hundred eighty-one (85 percent) patients in our series were able to have regular sexual intercourse, and no individual regretted having undergone GAS."

That is, after 20 years, zero regrets.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsurg.2021.639430/full

What makes it unethical for a person to knowingly consent to the procedure?

This study of 214 patients evaluated 20 years after their surgery states, "One hundred eighty-one (85 percent) patients in our series were able to have regular sexual intercourse, and no individual regretted having undergone GAS."

That is, after 20 years, zero regrets. — Hanover

Before I examine your study let us point this out.

I gave links to several people people who regretted having surgery, or had serious health problems and some even committed suicide.

So before I even click on the link to your study I doubt it's validity.

Reddit's detransition now has nearly 30,000 members and there are many stories on there of peoples regretting transition.

So presenting me something that mentions zero regrets I find almost laughable.
Before I even click on the study I assume it is self report on a minority of people who had the surgeries.

I was unaware that surgical ethics revolved solely around subjective feedback if so I find that rather staggering. I have no doubt medical ethics is a highly flawed area but having no objective measure of harm is ridiculous.

Jazz Jennings and several other children have been minors when having life altering irreversible treatments on them. Do you actually want to post pictures of botched surgeries and mutilated bodies on here.
Also 214 people out of nearly 8 Billion humans. Very persuasive.

Anecdotal evidence as found on social media has no validity. The accounts are not verified and they provide no statistical validity because there's no way to determine if the outliers are over-represented.

If you're interested in the actual studies, as opposed to searching for data supportive of your conclusions, you can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detransition

I'd also point out that your argument from the data isn't entirely coherent because your specious moral argument makes it ultimately irrelevant to you.

That is to say, if your objection is to the primitive state of medical science, then the solution would be to promote advances in those medical technologies as opposed to condemning transsexuals.

Anecdotal evidence as found on social media has no validity. The accounts are not verified and they provide no statistical validity because there's no way to determine if the outliers are over-represented. — Hanover

I posted evidence of real Trans identified people including one person who committed suicide after a botched attempt to turn a penis into a vagina.
It is not anecdotal. It is not social media. It is news reports on what trans peoples said and did.

You presented a study which averaged to ten people a year which claimed they said they were satisfied with gender confirmation surgery.

There was not enough detail to validate these claims. I am very certain I can link to you to more cases other than the dozens I have already highlighted of people regretting affirmation surgeries.

Do you think a 214 people is an adequate representation of a study effecting 7-8 billion humans? In my university studies I was taught these kind of small figures are not significant.

Your study was based on 10 people a year having these surgeries not the thousands of young woman trying to raise funds to have healthy breasts removed on Just giving so. I feel you are acting in bad faith. It would be great if only 10 people a year were having these surgeries!!

As a Gay male. If I saw a study involving 214 people I would assume it didn't represent me.

I am not sure what your stance is. Whether you are actually pushing for more men to have their penises turned into pseudo vaginas?

all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female — praxis

Yes, that's the case, until the xx and xy chromosomes are activated and the pubic hump is differentiated into female or male body parts. The rest of the body is differentiated as well -- pelvic width, musculature, bone length, CNS, etc. This is true for mammalian development across the board (except for duckbilled platypuses (platypusi?). Nipples, likewise, again across the board. But men don't start lactating without a major hormonal push.

Men are men, women are women. East is east, west is west, and never the twain shall meet. (Kipling. Not a serious quote)

What have they given up — praxis

Might-have-been history is always fun to write, if unreliable.

"What was given up" probably won't be visible to younger gay people, let alone heterosexuals. Even old folks like myself are too young to remember some aspects of "gay liberation". But briefly:

forming gay all-male communities
outsider status
an alternative set of values

Stonewall, 1969, was not the beginning of gay liberation: It was a landmark that was latter mistaken for the beginning. Pieces of gay liberation had been happening for the previous 80 yers, here and there. Whitman's Calamus poems (1859) were about "the manly love of comrades"--eros, not agape or brotherly love. Gay men were around before then, of course, but mostly unacknowledged--which is what made it possible for them to exist (carefully) in plain sight.

Sex and companionship were a key part of the early gay community, and its forms could develop outside of the mainstream culture because, again, it was scarcely acknowledged. To the extent that gay men violated norms on sex roles, race, class, and age, the less visibility to the outside world, the better.

There were some high ideals in the Stonewall era too, but by the mid-1970s, gay activism was focused on opening the American military to gay men (Leonard Matlovich). Some of us never thought that that fight was worthwhile. BUT, high ideals had given way to across the board acceptance in everything from the military to marriage.

Outsider status is a valuable element, in that those who have it are free to develop a culture as they see fit. Join the mainstream, and that's no longer possible. Gay men developed a sexual culture of having many partners with less emphasis on long-term commitments. The mainstream objections to gay culture were about morals, and how promiscuity was immoral. Later (1980s) the health risks of unprotected promiscuity were highlighted, and true enough, there were avoidable risks. But the upshot was, "settle down with one partner", which is the heterosexual solution.

A major piece of public health effort was aimed at eliminated the locations where gay men met. Under cover of disease prevention, the key infrastructure of the gay male sexual community was lost.

Grindr has had a less liberatory benefit than one might think. By individualizing / privatizing the search for a suitable sexual partner, social settings like gay bars have been seriously diminished.

Marriage, children, and mortgages are a time-tested way of pacifying men. Once married, once having a mortgage, and maybe children, one takes on commitments that mean one had better comply, be compliant, else one may be fired, making the marriage/mortgage burden all that much heavier.

I personally do not believe trans people exist because I don't believe you can transition from one sex to another or one gender to another. I disapprove of people trying to make me believe they were either born in the wrong body, have changed sex, deserve to be treated as the opposite sex and a range of other beliefs under the trans umbrella. This the only ideology where people are allowed to try and force people into sharing someone else's mental states. — Andrew4Handel

Do you happen to believe that gay people exist? Do you believe that it is possible to change sexual preference from the opposite gender to the same gender? Do you disapprove of people trying to make others believe that they're engaged in same-sex relationships? What do you think about forcing same-sex marriage ideology onto others?

So it's one's physical appearance that determines whether or not one is a man or a woman (rather than one's genes)? — Michael

Like I've said twice in this thread:

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these.
You seem to be focused on the XX chromosomes and not the rest of the characteristics.

You said that pronouns refer to sex. In modern usage pronouns refer (also) to gender. — Michael

The problem is that you haven't defined gender in such a way that makes it useful to use if it's not related to sex. What is gender if not sex? And why do trans genders attempt to change their physiology if gender doesn't have to do with physiology?

But appearances are changeable, and so a man that wants to look like a woman can do that and she can call herself "she" and her friends can do that as well, and you can cross your arms and refuse, and they can call you a dick and you can say "fine," and they can say "fine" back. That's where this goes. I'm just wondering why that's your preference. — Hanover

Well, yeah. Free speech and all that. Your rights to do what you want stop at infringing on my rights to do what I want. We've all been called names we don't identify with. Get over it.

And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy?

Like I've said twice in this thread:

Biological sex is based on a combination of traits:

- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)

Using genitals and gonads alone, more than 99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes—male and female—and the other traits almost always occur with these.
You seem to be focused on the XX chromosomes and not the rest of the characteristics. — Harry Hindu

Yet you accepted that someone who is XX male is male and so clearly it's false to say that "in humans, XY is male, XX female". It may be that incidentally 99.9% of men have XY chromosomes, but given that there are men who don't have XY chromosomes it follows that having XY (or XX) chromosomes isn't a measure of biological sex. It certainly may influence biological sex, but the reality of genetics is that other things can influence it as well, even if they don't occur as often.

There are people who have XX chromosomes (which you admit is possible for men), that have high levels of testosterone and low levels of estrogen, do not have breasts, and do have facial hair. What determines whether or not such a person is a man or a woman? Does it depend on them having a penis and testes? What if they lost them in an accident?

The problem is that you haven't defined gender in such a way that makes it useful to use if it's not related to sex. — Harry Hindu

Sex and gender distinction

An easy way to think about it; if your brain were transplanted into a body with breasts, a vagina, a womb, ovaries, etc., would you identify as a man or a woman? I'd still identify as a man.

What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy? — Harry Hindu

Are you kidding me? If I were to snap my fingers and change your gender-related brain dynamics, you would be astonished at the huge variety of ways in which your perceptual-affective style of processing your world , including but far exceeding sexual attraction, would change in an instant. You would still be you, but a significant aspect of your personality would undergo a shift.

And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy? — Harry Hindu

The critical difference between your example and that of a transsexual is that your claims of dysphoria are in bad faith. In fact, they're not meant to be taken seriously, but are meant as mockery and are contemptuous.

So, there's that.

Transsexuals are dysphoric, meaning they're at unease with their physical state of being because their mental state tends to the feminine, and so they attempt to bring alignment of their mind and their body. There is (again) a critical distinction to be made. They are not delusional, but are dysphoric. If they were delusional, a man might actually think he was indistinct from a woman and then go about calling himself what he clearly was not. That would be like if you thought yourself a Sith, the problem wouldn't be a dysphoria, but it would be a delusion, meaning you had lost touch with reality.

To the extent there is actually a person out there who is dysphoric and so intimately identifies as a Sith that he insists upon being referred that way, then you might have an analogous situation, but the thing is, that's not really a thing. It's just the joke you wanted to tell, and so you told it.

And I can dress like a Dark Sith Lord and demand that you address me as "My master". What is so special about sex/gender that people can identify as a sex they are not, but identifying as something else you are not, well that's just crazy? — Harry Hindu

Ask yourself: why is the above laughable rationalization more important to me than being friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals? Why don't I want to be friendly and somewhat accomodating to transsexuals?

You don't care if all the transsexuals think you're a dick - and they do. They do and that's fine with you.



character: the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.

https://www.google.com/search?q=character&rlz=1C1RXQR_enUS982US982&oq=character&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i131i433i512j69i65l3j69i61l3.1481j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8